Skip to main content

Full text of "The ablative of quality and the genitive of quality [microform]"

See other formats

NO. 93-81316 


as part of the 
"Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" 

Funded by the 

Reproductions may not be made without permission from 

Columbia University Library 


The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United 
States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or 
other reproductions of copyrighted material. 

Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and 
archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other 
reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the 
photocopy or other reproduction is not to be "used for any 
purpose other than private study, scholarship, or 
research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a 
photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair 
use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. 

This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a 
copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
would involve violation of the copyright law. 











Master Negative # 

Restrictions on Use: 

Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 

'■ " w 

f 877.55 

Edwards, George Vail, 1868-^955 

The u])Iativo of quality and tlie genitive of quality ... 
New York, Tlie Evening post job printing house, 1900. 

89 I). 23"". 

I licsis (I'll. I..)— Joliiis Ilnpkiiis imivcrsiiy. 

Bibliography: p. [85j-^7. 

Volume of theses. 

1. Latin language— Case. i. Title. 

Library of Congress 
Copyright 1900 A 13504 









Association for information and Image IManagement 

1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100, 
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 mm 


i I 



I I I 






m — 

136 III 3.2 




mil 4.0 












v^ ^ 

The Ablative of Quality 


The Genitive of Quality 


Presented for the Degree of Ph. D., Johns Hopkins University 

JUNE, 1899 





The Evening Post Job Printing House, 156 Fulton Street. 

(Evening Post Building.) 

Copyright 1900 
BT George Vail Edwards. 





in grateful recognition 
of many kindnesses greater than the Author can ever hope to repay 

this work is inscribed 










Attitudes of Ancient and Modern Grammarians 9 

Steps of Progress with Ablatives since 1867 9 

a. Delbriick. 

b. Ebrard. 

c. Stegman. 

d. Golling. 

Golling's Summary 10 

a. Origin of Abl. Qualitatis. 
^.'Character at Earliest Appearance. 

c. Distinction between Abl. Qualitatis and 


d. Distinction between Abl. Qualitatis and 

Abl. Modi. 

e. Distinction between Abl. Qualitatis and 

Abl. Absolutus. 
/. Steps of Development for Adverbial to 

Adjective Sociative. 
g. Fault of Delbriick's Phraseology. 
h. Fundamental difference between Abl. 

Qual. and Gen. Qualitatis. 
/. Requirements for Further Progress. 

Progress with Genitives 12 

a. Bell's View. 

b, Delbriick's Suggestions. 

Scope of Present Work ' '3 

Some Results ^3 

a. The Historical Development of the 


b. Traces of Greek Influence. 

c. Changes in the Meaning of Words. 


Influence of Form. 


A Genitive vis is Wanting i6 

Faciei and Speciei Avoided i6 

a. Faciei Etymologically Uncertain. 

b. Forma Contrasted. 

c. Speciei Uncertain. 

d. Other Nouns of 5th Decl. 

Genitive pans avoided 27 

Genitives of Adjectives in is Comparatively Rare 30 

The Rhyme orum-orum 35 

Effect of Hexameter 39 

a, Corpore. 

b. Pondere. 


Ablative and Genitive Side by Side. 

General Remarks 46 

Special Instances: 

1. Plant. Vid. Frag, v: 42 48 

2. Ter. Adel. 441 49 

3. Cic. Verr. 5,30 49 

4. Verr. 4i 118 50 

5. DeDiv. 2,88 51 

6. Arch. 31 51 

7. Fam. 1,7,11 52 

8. Q. Fr. 2,9,4 53 

9. I^e Leg. 3, 45 54 

10. Brut. 237 55 

11. Fam. 4,8,1 57 

12. N.D. 2,48 58 

13. Phil- 2,13 59 

14. Att. 14,14,2 59 

15. Cses. B. G. 7,39 60 

16. Nep. Dat. 3, i 60 

17. Sail. Hist. 2,16 61 

18. Liv. X, II, 8 63 
























Val. Max. 



6, 22, 7 63 

27, 19, 8 64 

30, 4, 1 64 

31, 21, 6 65 

38, 24, 2 65 

I, 7, 7 65 

N. H. 7,24 66 

II, 274 66 

12, 46 66 

12, 56 66 

25, 74 66 

25, no 66 

27, 44 66 

27, 83 66 

27, 115 66 

27, 118 dd 

27, 122 67 

31, 47 67 

21, 23 68 

12, 47 68 

12, 56 68 

21, 25 68 

19, 127 69 

21, 154 69 

26, 37 69 

27,125 69 

10, 8 69 

9, 54 70 

18, 37 70 

8, 214 71 

Hist. I, 14 71 

2,64 71 

4, 15 71 

Ann. 4,29 72 

6,5 73 

4,61 73 

' 6,15 73 

6,31 73 

5, 1 74 

12, 2 74 

13,54 74 


6i. Fronto 

62. Gellius. 







71. S. H. A. 




75. Firm. Mat. 



78. Aur. Vict. 

79. Pallad. 






89. Scr. Phys. 








15,38 74 

Ad M. Caes. 2, 5 75 

I, 15, 9 75 

3, 16, 4 76 

9,4,6 76 

9,4, 9 76 

14, 2, 6 76 

17, 9, 7 77 

17, 19, 3 77 

19, 9, 1 77 

19, 9, 2 77 

Hadr. 10, 6 78 

Ant. Pi. 2, 1 78 

Pesc. 6,5 79 

Tyr. 30,15 79 

3, 3, 10 79 

3, 10, 9 79 

4, 19, 5 79 

Cses. 18 80 

3, 26, 1 80 

4, II, 2 80 

4, II, 4 80 

4, II, 5 80 

4, 14, I 80 

4, 14, 3 80 

7, 7, 7 81 

8, 4 2 81 

12, 13, 7 81 

12, 13, 7 81 

Pol. p. 188, 21 (Foerst) 82 

238, 15 82 

272, 3 82 

Anon. 4, 5 (F. Vol. II.) 83 

4,92 83 

4, 94 83 

4, 107 83 

4, 110 ^Z 

4,124 83 

4, 130 83 

Pseud. Pol. 5 A,i4 84 

Bart. 39,9 84 





Since the days of Priscian the attention of grammarians has been 
drawn by the apparent coincidence of function between the 
ablative and the genitive in phrases such as magna virtute vir and 
magnce virtutis vir. The ancient grammarians cared less for reasons 
than for facts, and so Priscian (III Keil, 221, 10; 214, 7; 360, i) 
is content to observe the occurrence of these expressions without 
deeper explanation than is implied in his comparison of them with 
the Greek genitives like iAEyd\i-/> aftertf^ avffp. 

The modern grammarians, on the other hand, have sought to 
solve many questions about these constructions, such as their 
origin, their primitive nature, the limitations appearing in the use 
of each, the extent of their difference or of their equivalence with 
one another; but the success of these efforts has not been such as to 
yield a concise and accurate expression of the whole truth. Indeed 
the newest American school grammars — for instance, Lane's — seem 
driven back fairly to the ancient standpoint, the mere statement of 
the most obvious fact. 

Notwithstanding this failure to reach unanimity upon all points, 
the past century has brought an advance in our knowledge of the 
constructions before us. So long as we designated the two construc- 
tions by a common adjective, qualitatis^ we had in the very name a 
source of confusion to our ideas, which was in no wise removed 
when Madvig (Gram. § 287) applied the new titles " der beschrei- 
bende Genetiv, der beschreibende Ablativ, " to the old constructions. 
If there is really a fundamental difference between these two 
cases, then we may have a gain still to make through a distinction 
in names, just as in the case of two other constructions bearing a 
common appellation we have made a gain recently by distinguish- 
ing them as the ablative of price and the genitive of value (cf. 
Archiv. IX. 10 1, ff.). 

A great step in the advance toward a perception of the funda- 
mental nature of the Ablative of Quality was taken with Delbriick's 
dissertation *'Ablativus Localis Instrumentalis " (Berl., 1867), in 





which the ablative was distinguished as a compound case made up 
of three elements, a separativus, a locativus and an instrumentalis, 
the last, in turn, composed of two categories; first, ''der sociative 
instrumentalis"; second, **der instrumentalis des Mittels." 

This step brought a new point of view, and to make it fruitful 
it was necessary to consider next some large collection of examples. 
Ebrard took up this task in his dissertation, '^De Ablativi Locativi 
Instrumentalis . . . Usu," discussing a collection of instances from 
Plautus and the early Latin, which is large, though for Plautus very 
far from complete. Next followed Stegmann (Neue Jahrb., 132, p. 
243 if., & 136 p. 252 ff.) with a more exhaustive collection of the 
examples from Caesar and Cicero, except the letters. Shortly after Steg- 
mann came Golling's treatise in ''Gymnasium " (Vol. 6, Nos. i & 2), 
which is the broadest discussion of the Ablative of Quality that has 
yet appeared. The main points of Golling's discusssion are of suffi- 
cient importance to warrant their recapitulation here. 

To Golling it appears, first, that the Ablative of Quality has its 
origin in what Delbriick calls ''der sociative instrumentalis"; second, 
its character as it first appears in Latin is distinctly that of sociativus. 
This does not overlook the fact that in some instances the idea of 
the separativus lies very close at hand; for instance, with the ablative 
of quality summo getter e esse compare the expression summogenere 
gnatus esse. 

Another distinction, not always easily drawn, is that between 
the Ablative of Quality and the Ablative of Manner, because the 
accompaniment of a subject in action very often may be felt as 
an accompaniment of the action; thus, for instance, Tac. Germ. 43, 
praesidet sacerdos muliebri ornatu is not easy to classify. Golling's 
distinction here is that this ablative remains an Ablative of Quality only 
so long as its definite connection with the subject is felt; but once 
having granted that, it will not be necessary to deny the qualitative 
character of the ablative in order to recognize the modal force which 
it has also. 

The qualitative ablative includes, further, many expressions 
which might be looked upon fi-om another point of view as Ablative 
Absolutes, of which Golling gives abundant illustrations; for in- 
stance, Caes. B. G. 5, 14, 3: Brittani sunt capillo promisso atque 
omni parte corporis rasa praeter caput et labrum superius; or Plant. 
Capt 789: conlecto quidem est pallio. 


Concerning the steps of development by which from an original 
adverbial sociative the ablativus qualitatis (an adjective sociative) 
was reached, Golling adopts the view in which Kriiger has pre- 
ceded Delbriick, that out of such expressions as legiones profectcB 
sunt alacri animo, or pugnare cequo fronte, arose pugnatio cBquo 
fronte, or legiones sunt alacri animo, whence legiones alacri animo, 
Golling has not fallen upon the unfortunate example, serpens immani 
corpore incedit, which Delbruck has since used for illustration of this 
view, to the misleading of Bennett, who in his Appendix, § 345, 
follows Delbriick. Incedit is a verb which Roman writers never 
used with serpens, its action implying a different motion from that 
possible to the snake. 

Neither does Golling adopt the phraseology of Delbruck, who, 
in view of the transient character of most instances of this ablative 
and its contrast in that very particular with the Genitive of Quality, 
cannot be credited with having invented an illuminating title when 
he named this construction " der Instrumentalis der dauerenden 

Eigenschaft. " 

Concerning the nature of the difference between the Ablative of 
Quality and the Genitive of Quality, Golling favors the view of 
Kriiger (Gram., § 398, i). ''Durch den Gen. wird ein Gegenstand 
dargestellt wie er (nach der Ansicht des Redenden) ist, durch den 
Ablativ, wie er sich zeigt, " ' ' Die Frage nach der Ausbreitung des 
einen und des anderen Kasus," says Golling, '*ist hiermit entschie- 
den. Jedes Merkmal eines Begriffes kann als seine Begleitung, in 
welche er erscheint, aufgefasst werden, d. h. jeder Gen. qual. wird 
im Allg. durch den Abl. vertreten werden konnen, dagegen wird 
umgekehrt nur zufallig hie und da, was als begleitendes Moment 
eines Begriffes erscheint, ein Merkmal darstellen." This dictum of 
Kruger's and of Golling's reads very well, but it is open to the in- 
stant objection that every scholar may have his own view of what 
the ** Ansicht des Redenden" was, and accordingly we may be left 
no nearer a solution of our problem than we were before. Take, 
for instance, Cic. Fam., 4, 8, i, neque monere te audeo praestanti 
prudentia virum nee confirmare maximi animi hominem. Kiihner 
translates, ' ' Der du vorziigliche Klugheit zeigst, aber maximi animi 
von dem ganzen charakter," thus agreeing with Kruger. Madvig, 
on the other hand, declares that there is no difference; agreeing with 
Zumpt Draeger thinks the variation appears not **nach der 





Ansjcht des Redenden, " but ' • nur der Abwechslungs wegen. " Not- 
withstanding the difficulties which attend such a subjective interpre- 
tation of the difference between Ablative and Genitive, it may be 
said, at least, that no other distinction comes very much nearer to 
meeting the facts of the situation; for if we set out on the basis that 
the Genitive denotes m/erna/ qualities, the Mztive externa/, we shall 
speedily fall through; and on the basis that the genitive denotes the 
Mmanen/ quality, the Ablative the /ransien/. we shall still find con- 
tradiction at every period of the language, from Plautus to Pruden- 

If these inconsistencies are to receive an explanation it must be 
at the cost of a much larger collection of instances than any which 
has hitherto been brought together. Golling sees in this direction 
the light of hope and calls for an investigation of the entire course 
of this construction, - mit jener Vollstandigkeit wie sie Ebrard fur 
die Aei teste Sprache erreicht hat. " 

Even had we at hand the complete collection of Ablatives which 
Golhng desires, that would not suffice for the solution of our 
problems, for with the discussion of the Ablative of Quality, that of 
the Genitive of Quality goes hand in hand. For the Genitive not so 
much discussion has taken place as for the Ablative, nor is the con- 
struction in general so well understood. A. Bell, -De Locativi in 
Pnsca Latimtate Vi et Usu" (Breslau, 1889), has sought to show a 
ocative ongin for the Genitive of Quality ; his argument being (p. 
49) that the earliest Genitives of Quality (compounds ofmodi^ pre^i 
^...m) were made with the locative pronouns, hic^ illi, isH^ etc. 
which aftenvards, looked upon as genitives, led to the employmenl 
by their side of the real genitives huius, illius^ istius, etc. Thus 
beside istt modi, Plaut. True, 930, appeared istius modi, PI. Epid ' 

rnii' T T^'' ^'^^ ^^' "''' ^""^ ^"^^^^^"3^ ^^^^Pted, but Beirs 
collection of examples is valuable, well supplementing that of Edw. 

Loch, de Genetivi apud PriscosUsu (1880). The prevailing view of 

wi^K^' /r^ """1'"' of Quality ascribes it to the possessive, 
with Kruger (Gram., § 339), though Delbriick's suggestions (Vergl 
^ynt., § 164 and § 171), that the genitivus qualitatis -vielleicht 
nicht mdogermanisch ist '' and -nicht unwahrscheinlich sich nach 
Auflosung der alten Komposita entwickelt hat '^ indicate the uncer- 
tainty still felt about its source. 

It is in the hope of adding something of value to both these 


discussions, in the direction which Golling for the Ablative suggests, 
that the present work has been undertaken. Where so many of the 
keenest scholars have so long failed to find a simple, unexceptionable 
rule for distinguishing these constructions it was not hoped to dis- 
cover one now; but one result at least was certain to attend the 
consideration of a great collection of examples drawn from all 
periods of the literature, and that, an oversight of the constructions 
in their historical development such as no one has hitherto enjoyed. 
Following this purpose the author has read through Livy, Velleius, 
both Senecas, Tacitus, Fronto, Justinus, Gellius, Apuleius, Firmicus 
Maternus, Palladius and the Scriptores Physiognomici, gathering 
thus the examples from these writers of which there have been extant 
no collections at all. By an independent reading also the author 
has gathered from Plautus and Terence double the number of 
examples cited by Ebrard, several from Nepos, overiooked by Lupus, 
all those from Cicero's letters and those from Vergil's ^Eneid. 

The examples to be cited from the eariy poets, from Cato, Varro, 
C^sar, Cicero's Orations and Philosophical Works, Sallust, Catullus, 
Horace, Tibullus, Propertius, Ovid, Valerius, Cunius, Pliny the 
Elder, Phsedrus, Pomponius Mela, Petronius, Statins, Quintilian, 
Juvenal, Suetonius, Granius Licinianus, Lactantius, Eutropius, 
Aurelius Victor, Scriptores Historiae Augustas, Ammianus Marcel- 
linus, Prudentius and others, have been collected through the use of 
treatises, special lexicons and indices verborum, cross references and 
the contributions of friends. The total number of instances thus 
collected is considerably above three thousand. 

The first result of this investigation to become apparent was the 
clear determination of several steps in the historical development of 
the construction; a result not unexpected, and already hinted at by 
Golling, Joh. Miiller and others, but never before so cleariy dis- 
played. To undertake a full discussion of this development; of 
the scope of each construction in the rime of Plautus, the extensions 
introduced by Lucrerius and Cicero, the points of development and 
decay appearing in Livy and the Silver writers, and the later con- 
fusion of types, would require a trearise. Suffice it here to make a 
brief statement of the most obvious facts and then to proceed to the 
discussion of some results which were not to the same degree 


In eariy Latin our Ablative was largely the case for physical 

> I 4^ 



descriptions and held this domain almost to the exclusion of the 
Genitive, which, aside from compounds of modi, generis and pretii 
was confined to a few unusual and mostly figurative expressions. 
Lucretius had new ideas, of a less concrete sort, to express and he 
used the Ablative. In Cicero's time the range of ideas to be exactly 
expressed was greatly amplified in the direction of abstract qualities, 
and the Ablative, accordingly, extended its function; but now the 
Genitive, as the '*of" case, opposed to the Ablative, as the 
**with" case, seemed more fitted to the expression of the 
deeper-seated qualities, and Cicero extended its use to include 
many new expressions, mostly of abstract qualities, involving the 
adjectives summus, ?nagnus, maximus and tantus, and a few others. 
These developments, occurring within the long period of Cicero's 
literary activity, have given to his usage an apparent inconsistency 
which has had double effect upon the opinion of grammarians who 
looked to Cicero as the pattern of style. Caesar, writing during a 
more limited period, does not show the same inconsistency. With 
Livy a new force appears. The'Genirive is left to follow its own 
extension within the lines already drawn, but the Ablative, as the 
old-fashioned case, gets gradually forsaken. For the ideas which 
the Ablative has expressed new adjectives are employed, and by the 
time of Velleius and Valerius the abandonment of the Ablative be- 
came almost complete. When the reaction from this impulse set in 
the return was plainly to an inconsistent model. Gellius chose to 
express with these constructions few ideas which had not already 
received the stamp of ablative or genitive; but, where at one period 
the Ablative had been used and at a later period the Genitive for very 
similar ideas, Gellius had free choice which analogy to follow, and 
most often, though not uniformly, took the Ablarive. Not all the 
later writers shared the archaistic tendency of Gellius, but the course 
of the constructions remained much the same until with the writers 
of the last half of the fourth century the old distinctions were for- 
gotten and each writer followed new ones for himself. 

When we seek to explain the instances collected as the results of 
the forces indicated above, namely, first, a logical development of 
each construcdon on the basis of its fundamental nature, the ablative 
being the **with" case, the genitive the **of" case; second, the 
effect, through the operation of analogy, of the development of the 
Ablative so early, compared with that of the Genitive; and third, the 



intentional variation from a preceding type of style by the Silver 
writers and again by Gellius and his successors, much will become 
clear, but we shall still find ourselves often at a loss. 

The general character of the difference between the cases, 
though hard to state in a form which will always apply, is, never- 
theless, too clearly felt to be denied. Indeed, the usage is so regu- 
lar, that when apparent exceptions occur we may well inquire if 
they be not due to the operation of some special causes not yet fully 

A few such causes suggest themselves readily; for instance, we 
should expect to find some influence exerted through the intimacy 
of the Romans with Greek. That the Latin Genitive of Quality is an 
imitation of the Greek, Brenous, Les Hellenismes dans la syntaxe 
Latine, p. 97, denies. Nevertheless, we shall see that the effects of 
Greek influence are not altogether lacking, in particular in the 
Latin translations of Greek compounds with n6\v- and 'ff- 

Again, a change in the meaning of words may have been of in- 
fluence. This is the case with animo. In Plautus animus signifies 
chiefly the spirits, and so the common ablative phrases are bono, 
tranquillo, quieto, liquido animo. By Cicero's time the word had 
gained in meaning ; and while Cicero kept, for the most part, the 
ablative in such combinations as cegro, altiore, anxio, angusto, con- 
sulari, excelso, firmo, forti, hostili, ieiuno, imbecillo, infirmo, inhumano, 
mobili, mansuetOy magno, maximo, parvo, pravo, pari, sapienti, sim- 
plici, singulari, siabili animo, yet when the meaning intended was 
that of a permanent characteristic and not of the passing mood or 
spirits, the genitive (»2tf^«/, maximi animi, cf. pieyaXdcpvxoSy ^eyd- 
:^v^05) was logically required and often so appeared. That Terence 
felt the beginnings of this change in meaning, we may infer from 
his phrases incerto, virili, leni, duro, comi, amico, fideli, benigno, per- 
vicaci animo. 



The first to be considered of the instances in which the usage of 
the qualitatis constructions has been affected by the limitations of 
etymological forms may be the noun vis. The Ablative of Quality 
with vi is frequent enough, but had a writer wished to express an 
idea for which the genitive of this noun were more precisely adapted, 
he would have been met at once with the fact that, not only for the 
Genitive of Quality, but for every other construction of the genitive, 
a form vis was lacking in Latin even until the beginning of the third 
century A. D. Writers were accordingly driven to the disuse of the 
genitive vis or to the substitution for it of a synonymous adjective, 
or the ablative vi. The following instances of vi appear : 

Plant. True, Arg. 5: vi magna servos est ac trucibus moribus. 

ball. Cat. 5 i: Catilina fuit magna vi et animi et corporis. A 
phrase repeated in connection with a difficult indi- 
vidual by 

Anon. De Viris Illustribus, ^^', Mithridates, magna vi animi et 

Plin. N. H. 2, 39: simili ratione, sed nequaquam magnitudine 
aut VI. 

8, 38 excellenti vi et velocitate uros. 
24, 1 10 purpurea ... vis summa ad refrigerandum est 

II VIS dEXv. vi VG ||. 
34, 1 54 squama acriore vi quam robigo. 

As the second instance of the influence of etymological forms 
we may take the genitives of nouns of the fifth declension. For 
the first example, the genitive oi fades. The form of this genitive 
written in modem texts \, faciei^ like m, spei^ diei; but in early Latin 
and even in classical Latin the form is not sure. In Neue's Formen- 
ehre, pages 375 ff. are cited the instances to show that in the early 
anguage the genitive of nouns of the fifth declension was in -es 
hke the nominative, beside which later appeared a genitive in -ei 
which could be also contracted to-., or contracted to-/. Gellius 
(9.14) IS one of the witnesses that Caesar preferred the form in-. 
(Caesar in libro de analogia secunda huius die et huius specie dicendum 



putat), whereas Claud. Quadrig. had preferred the form in-.j, 
** huius faczVj," *' propter magnitudinem iz.zies," 

Now, if a Latin writer used the genitive form facies, it was in 
danger of being confused with the nominative singular, or with the 
nominative and accusative plural. If he used facie, then it coin- 
cided with the ablative. For some reason facii never came into 
general use ; and the remaining form faciei, coinciding with the 
dative, was also, perhaps for that reason, not satisfactory. How 
long this variety of forms persisted in Roman usage we cannot state 
with precision. The regularity of modern texts in reading the 
genitive faciei may possibly be due to scribes' corrections of forms 
which the authors wrote in -es or -ie, but which seemed to the scribes 
merely errors. Another possibility is that some writers may have 
used a Genitive of Quality with the form facie, which the copyist 
corrected to an Ablative of Quality by altering the case of the ad- 
jective in agreement, supposing the gen. facie, which the author 

wrote to be an ablative. 

These are mere possibilities. The examples show for centuries 
no attempt at a Genitive of Quality, but only the Ablative, and that 

very frequent from Plautus on. 

353 neque qua facie sit scio. 

399 Qua facie voster Saurea est ? 

646 Sed qua faciest tuos sodalis Philo- 

crates t 
547 sat edepol concinnast facie. 
1 1 1 1 Nutrix qua sit facie. 
724 Qua facie? 

1 2 1 7 Eho tu, qua facie fuit . . . ? 
316 Nullum istac facie ut praedicas 

565 Qua sunt facie ? Seep. — Scitula. 
1 149 dicito quid insit et qua facie. 
1 1 5 5 Qua facie sunt t 

(Not once have we cuius sit faciei. ) 
7, Ribb, 254 facie procera virum. 
230 (virginem) Facie honesta. 
473 Quam liberali facie quam aetate 

682 (ille erat) Honesta facie et liberali. 
441 cadaverosa facie. 
100 virgo ipsa facie egregia. 
I, 67, qua facie . . . (animus) sit aut 
ubi habitet. 

Plant. Asin. 




Pacuv. Niptra Frg. 
Ter. Eun. 

Cicero Tusc. 



De Div. 

Sail. Jug. 
Nepos Datames 

Nat. Deor. i, 8i, deos ea facie novimus qua pic- 
tores fictoresque voluenint. 

1, 53 ei visum in quiete egregia facie 

2, 41, Turselius qua facie fuerit. 
6, decora facie. 

3, I, Thuyn, hominem maximi corporis 
terribilique facie. 

Note that Nepos was unable to balance his first genitive corporis 
with a second, because a Genitive of Quality from facies was not in 

More remarkable than this unanimity of the classical writers 
in the use of facie is its exclusive use by the writers of Silver 
Latin who showed otherwise the greatest preference for the genitive 


Val. Max. 

Plin. Nat. H. 

i> 55> 5» caput humanum integra facie . . . 
aperientibus . . . aperuisse. 
I. ext. 16, eximia facie puerum. 

3, 4, 7, formosos . . . et turpi facie 

17, 229, arborem turpi facie relinquunt. 
34, 60, hie supra dicto facie quoque in- 
discreta similis fuisse. 
[facile quoque et discreta B.] 

34, 93 (statua) sola eo habitu Romse, 
torva facie, 
Suet, vita Verg. (Donat.) corpore statura grandi, aquilo 

colore, facie rusticana valetu- 
dine varia. 
Pronto Ad Ant. i, 3, pullulos duos tarn simili facie sibi. 

2, 6, pollens viribus decora facie. 
Laudes Neg. 7, ut quaeque mulier magis facie 

freta est. 
Bell. Parth. facie eximia lapidem. 

2, 23, 8, ancillam facie baud illiberali. 
4, II, 14, feminam pulcra facie. 
7 (6), 8, 2, facie incluta mulierem. 

9, 4, 6, qua fuisse facie cyclopas poetae fe- 
I3» 30 (29). 3» aetate integra, feroci ingenio facie 

procera virum. 
[Cited by Cell, from Pacuvius Niptra Trag. frag. 254, cf. above.] 

I3» 30 (29), 6, Verba Plauti haec sunt . . . qua sit 

facie mi expedi. 





Apul. Met. 

15, 12, 2, pueri eximia facie. 
17, 10, 3, partus recentes rudi esse facie et 
II, 246, Nunc atra nunc aurea facie sub- 

Met 9, 177, puer mobili ac trepida facie. 

Polemo de physiogn. 55, facie magna oculis umidis. 

59, carnosa fronte, camosa facie. 
194, 6, Foerst. crinibus nigris angustiore 

We see, then, that in early, classical and Silver Latin the Genitive 
does not appear; for the fragment from Claudius Quadrig. quoted by 
Gellius (9, 14) ''huius facies" does not offer us a Genitive of 
Quality, but merely a form out of construction for the sake of illus- 
tration, and the conjecture of Detlefsen to Plin. N. Hist, 2, 90, 
specieque humanse faciei effigiem cannot be accepted in place of the 
MSS. reading specie humana Dei. 

It is when we come to the tasteless writers of the later time that 
we first find faciei, which does appear several times in the Latin 
translation of Bartholomaeus de Messana, and once in Polemo. 

Bart de Mess. 35 (Physiogn. L, p. 41, 8 Foerst) tristes. ob- 
scurae faciei sunt. 
40 (Phys. p. 49, 5 F.) est femina . . . angustioris 

35 (Phys. p. 37, 6 F.) parvae faciei. 
Polemo 35 (Phys. I, 242, 13 F.) staturae erectae, pulcrae faciei. ^ 

Two objections may be raised to the argument that this exclusion 
of faciei is due to its etymological form. First, it may be said that 
the Genitive was not used because no writer wished to express that 
particular form of this idea for which he felt the Genitive would be 
better adapted than the Ablative. Second, that the frequent and 
exclusive use of the Ablative of Quality facie in the early poets fixed 
its form forever, making it felt as a formula, not to be altered. 

Both these objections are met by a consideration of the usage of 
forma. Forma and facies are very similar, not only in meaning, but in 
sound and appearance. Alliteration helped to make the ideas more 
closely connected in the Latin mind. * ' Forma et facie " says Naevius, 
Trag. 4. Plautus, Miles, 1027 turns the same phrase, and Lucretius 
follows, De Nat. 5, 1263, and 5. 11 76. Quite as Shakspeare, with 
the same alliteration, says, Hamlet, 3. i, **form and feature." 



Moreover, Plautus and Terence use forma and facie almost inter- 
changeably in corresponding phrases. Compare PI. Amph. 614 
forma aetate item, Qua ego sum and Merc. 6^8, Qua forma esse 
aiebant? with PI. Asin. 399 Qua facie voster Saurea est ? and the like. 
Compare Ter. Andr. 72, egregia forma, with Ter. Phorm. 100 facie 
egregia; Ter. Eun. 132 forma honesta, with Ter. Eun. 230 Facie 
honesta; Ter. Andr. 122 forma Honesta ac liberali, with Eun. 473 
liberali facie, and with Eun. 682 Honesta facie et liberali. 

If it is true that the idea of facies is one which does not readily 
suggest itself as fitted for the genitive form, then forma also will not 
appear in the genitive; and if the early prevalence of the ablative 
facie has fixed its use, then the use of forma will be fixed likewise, 
provided forma is similarly prevalent in the early literature. The 
early prevalence of forma will appear from the following record: 

Plant Amph. 3 1 6 

Epid. 43 

Men. PI. 19 
Merc Arg. 2 






Pacuv. Medus (Ribb. 

Ter. Andr. 72 




Heaut. 523 

Eun. 132 



Lucr. DeRer. 2,414 

Alia forma esse. 

forma. . . Qua sum. 

forma lepida ac liberali. 

forma simili. 

scita forma mulierem. 

forma eximia mulierem. 

forma eximia mulierem. 

forma eximia mulierem. 

forma mala. 

Qua forma. 

forma regia. 

forma lepida mulierem. 

lepida forma. 

lepida ac liberali forma. 

forma lepida ac liberali. 

forma expetenda. 

forma scitula atque aetatula. 

forma eximia. 

231) (cited by Priscian I. 30, 87). 

Mulier egregissima forma. 

egregia forma. 

Forma bona. 

forma Honesta ac liberali. 

forma bona. 

forma luculenta. 

forma honesta. 

Estne, ut fertur, forma? 

Summa forma. 

Simili forma. 


5, 825 variantibus formis. 
4, I, 279 deteriora forma. 
Caes. B. G. 3, U, 5 absimili forma. 

B. G. 7, 23, I hac fere forma sunt. 

||haec fere forma est B||. 
Cic. Rep. 6, 10 ea forma: 

N. D. I, 90 Ante igitur humana forma, 
quam homines ea qua. 
||eaque|| erant f. di immortales. 
I, 107 nee ea forma qua illi fuerunt. 
Tim. 1 7 ea forma. 

Tusc. 5, 61 eximia forma. 
Verr. 4, 129 eadem . . forma. 
Nepos Iph. 3, I imperatoriaque forma. 

So far the ablative exclusively. Manifestly the early prevalence 
of forma is even greater than that of facie; and its use continues. 






N. H. 





8, 208 forma superante. 
3, 607 forma virginea. 

9, 330 forma notissima. 
15, 130 forma praestantissima. 

475 forma proxima. 
3, 35 forma praestanti. 

26, 50, I eximia forma. 

27, 19, 8 forma insigni. 
38, 24, 2 forma eximia. 

105 mirabili forma. 
7, 184 praecellente forma. 

10, 51 dilecta forma. 
19, 65 qua forma. 
19, 70 qua forma. 
34, 19 maxima forma. 

34, 78 eximia forma. 

35, 17 excellentissima forma. 
36, 188 forma terrena. 

79 forma eximia. 
I augustiore forma. 
3 forma egregia. 
2, 18, 3 forma liberali. 
5, 8, 9 pari forma. 

6 (7), 8, 3 forma liberali. 

7 (6), 8, 3 forma egregia. 

7 (6), 8, 3 exsuperanti forma. 
14, I, 5 quaque forma. 
14^ 4, 2 forma virginali. 
15, 30, 3 quali forma. 






17, I, 8 quali forma. 
i7> i> 8 quali forma nasceretur. 
Ann. 2, 39, 10 forma haud dissimili. 

Observe, now, that with the Augustan poets a Genitive formae 
begins to appear. 

Hor. Sat. 2, 7, 52 ne ditior aut formae melioris meiat eodem 

(perhaps melioris here metri causa). 
Ovid, Trist 3, 14, 19 sunt quoque mutatae ter quinque volumina 


Then with Livy and the Silver writers the use of the Genitive be- 
comes extended; for Valerius, Seneca, Curtius, Justinus and Apu- 
leius totally excluding the Ablative forma. 

this construction. Species is closely related in meaning to both 
forma and facies. Like both, it is freely used in the Ablative of 
Quality in early Latin. But it differs in form from forma and agrees 
in form with facies, and accordingly, if our conclusion for facie is 
true, specie also will be used in the Ablative but not in the Geni- 
tive of Quality. 

The instances for specie follow : 



36, 43, 8 

37. 23, 5 
37, 30, 2 

44, 28, 15 

Val. Max. 3, 8 

4, 3> I 

5» h 7 

9> 2 

22, 46, 5 scuta eiusdem formae (following the anal- 
ogy of eiusmodi). 



Sen. Dial. 
Curt. Ruf. 

Stat. Silv. 
Tac. Ann. 


Prob. Val. 

6, 24, 3 

3, 12, 21 

9, 13, 19 

64 7 

3» 4, 26 

4, 3 
Dom. 10 

15, 4, 17 

18, 4, 3 

Met 2, 5 

3, 15 
vita Pers. 

minoris formae naves erant. 

maioris formae navium. 

maximae formae naves. 

viginti eximiae eqvos formae. 

Ext. 4 excellentis formae puer. 

eximiae formae virginem. 

puer eximiae formae liberalis habitus. 

Ext. 5 filium liberalis formae optimaeque 

spei puerum. 
adulescens rarissimae formae. 
reginas excellentis formae. 
cubilia amplioris formae. 
ingentis formae canis.. 
puerum egregiae formae 
formae indecorie. 
lanceas novae formae. 
leo ingentis formse. 
insignis formae virgine. 
speciosae formae iuvenem. 
scitulae formulae iuvenem. 
formae pulchrae. 



B. G. 

Rose. Am. 


Nat. Deor. 

De divin. 




We are forced to the conclusion that the absence of a Genitive 
of Quality faciei is not due to reasons which would apply also to 
forma. It may be due to one reason which does not apply to forma; 
that is, to the etymological form of the word. The truth of this 
conclusion may be tested by an examination of the noun species in 

Curt. Ruf., 

N. H., 

838 bellan* videtur specie 

546 specie liberalist. 
II 1 3 specie venusta, ore atque 

oculis pernigris. 
415 specie lepida mulierem. 
6, 28, I (uri) sunt specie et colore 
et figura tauri. 
63 aliquem humana specie 
et figura. 
4, 129 eadem specie ac forma 
2, 66 latiore specie. 
I, 26 aes pulcherrima specie. 

1, 48 hominis (= humana) 

specie deos. 

2, 50 is Tages puerili specie. 

2, 63 ** vidimus immani specie 
tortuque draconum 
terribilem " (a quoted 
47 (securitas) specie qui- 
dem blanda. 
I, II, 8 aureas armillas magni 
ponderis . . . gemma- 
tosque magna specie 
I, 45, 4 bos miranda magni- 
tudine ac specie. 
I, 7, 4 boves mira specie. 
10, 39, II vana specie. 
21, 22, 6 iuvenem divina specie. 
40, 29 libros . . . recentissima 

6, 523 specie singulari spado. 
2, 90 specieque humana dei 
||humanae faciei Detlef- 



2, 91 Typhon ignea specie. 

2, 93 Tibianim specie. 

2, 90 hirti villorum specie. 
9» 144 specie vermiculorum. 

10, 8 vulturina specie. 
10, 114 hirundinum specie. 
^o> 135 turdorum specie. 

11, 75 Salis specie. 

12, 39 Albae violae specie. 
13, 114 specie farris. 

21, 41 versicolori specie. 

24, 178 hederacia specie. 
25, 26 specie ilia Homerica. 
25, 78 specie thyrsi. 

25, 167 trixaginis specie. 
27> 139 peltarum specie. 

30, 2 specie salutari. 
33f H4 Delicia specie. 
34, 116 vermiculorum specie. 

36, 20 velata specie. 

37 f 54 blandissima specie. 
37» 144 crystallina specie. 
S7f 149 vitrea specie. 
37 y 17^ globosa specie. 
2, 50, 8 invisitata specie. 
4, 3» S ea prima specie forma. 

4, S^y 5 maiore quam humana 

5, 6, 13 lacus inmenso ambitu 
specie maris. 

5, II, 18 tunes . . . mira specie. 
25* 5 classis egregia specie. 
30 specie canitieque pulchra. 

13. 30 (29) 6 Quotes Plaut Pcen. 11 13 
specie venusta. 

14, 2, 12, specie tenui parvaque. 
4, S$ gratissima specie. 

II, 241 multiformi specie. 

1 1, 244 catamiti pastoris specie. 

Like facie, specie has only the ablative until as late as Palladius, 
who furnishes at last a single genitive. 

Pall. 3, 9, 3 pulchrae speciei, grani callosi et siccioris . . . et 
cutis tenerioris. 

This comes too late to hinder the conclusion that good stylists 
avoided faciei and speciei because of their form. 










Other nouns of the fifth declension aid little in illustrating this 
influence of etymological form. 

Effigies and caniiies are too rare, though always in the ablative. 

Plin. N. H., 9, 54, scorpionis effigie aranei magnitudinis. 
Tac. Hist, 2, 3, II, Simulacrum deae non effigie humana. 
Suet. Claud., 30, specie canitieque pulchra. 
Rei is exceptional, since it appears only in the Genitive in the 
phrases nullius rei, nulli rei, non bonae rei, which are of very ancient 
use, and are ascribed by Bell to a locative origin. Plaut. Stich., 
720; Cato. orig., frg. 141; Cell. XIV, 2, 6; IX, 2, 6. 

In the case of spes and fides there is a special reason why the 
objection to the genitive form in -ei did not preclude its use. Take 
first spes. The early writers and Cicero used only the Ablative. 
Plaut. Rud. 275 quae in locis nesciis nescia spe sumus. 
Cic. Att. 6, I, 23 De Egnatii Sidicine nomine nee nulla nee 
magna spe sumus. 
Fam. I, 7, II eximia spe summa virtute adulescentem 

Ijsummae virtutis G. R. M'"!! 
Fam. 12, 28, 3 Ego sum spe bona. 

De Fin. 5, 52 homines infima fortuna nulla spe rerum 

Sometimes later writers also use the Ablative: 

Liv. 7, 7, 7 primo stetit ambigua spe pugna. 

7, 27, 7 et ne in muris quidem satis firma spe . . . sese 

26, 37, 3 suspensa omnia utrisque erant integra spe, in- 
tegro metu. 
Tac. Ann. i, 31, 2 legiones . . . magna spe fore ut. 
16, 3, I luxuria inana spe 
Hist. I, 12, 10 multi stulta spe. 
Gell. 13, 5, I spe vitae tenui fuit. 

Now observe that regularly the spes expressed with this ablative 
is the hope which the subject feels ; not the hope which the subject 
awakens. The second of these meanings (which Harper's Diction- 
ary wrongly confines to the poets and post Augustan prose writers), 
is objectively distinct from the first, and it is in recognition of this 
distinction that Caesar began to express the second meaning with the 
Genitive of Quality: 

Caes. B. G. 7, 63, 9 inviti summae spei adulescentes Eporedorix 
et Viridomarus Vercingetori parent. (These are not 
youths who felt very great hope: but youths of very 
great promise. ) 



B. C. 3, 1 6, 3 ne res maximae spei maximaeque utilitatis 
eius iracundia impedirentur. 
Hirtius B. G. 8, 8, 2 Singularis enim virtutis veterrimas 
legiones VII, VIII, IX, habebat, summae spei delec- 
taeque juventutis XL 

Matius writing to Cic. 44 B. C. perceives the same distinction. 

Cic. Fam. 11, 28, 6 et optimae spei adulescenti. 
Of course, the Silver writers use the genitive form; 

Val. Max 9, 2, ext. 5 liberalis formoe, optimaeque spei puerum. 
Sen. Cont. i, 6, i bonae spei uxor, bonae spei nurus 
I, 6, exc. 6 Bonae spei uxor, bona3 spei nurus. 
Sen. Dial. 4. 24, 3 adulescens rarissimae formae in tam magna 

feminarum turba viros corrumpentium nullius se spei 


And thus we come to 

Petron. 117 iuvenem ingentis eloquentiae et spei. 
and Plin, N. H. 18, 283 nee patitur ratio naturae quicquam in satis 

ante diem spei esse certae . 
31, 48 promittit . . . optimas speique certissimce. 

Thus the Ablative expresses the literal idea of the quality, 
while for the derived idea the genitive seems needed; and because 
of this need the formal objection to a fifth declension genitive has 
been overlooked. 

Fides shows a similar distinction in meanings. From the litieral 
fides, *' trust," which the subject feels, there is derived a fides, 
''trustworthiness,' which the subject inspires, and if fides follows the 
analogy of spes we shall expect to find a genitive fidei appearing, 
after Cicero, to express this derived idea of trustworthiness. This 
expectation is met by the instances. 

The early writers and Cicero used the Ablative, and the Ablative 

Plaut. Aul. 213 Quid fide? E.-Bona. 

Bacc. 542 Lingua factiosi, . . . sublesta fide. 
Ter. Adel. 161 ut usquam fuit fide quisquam optuma. 

442 (civium) antiqua virtute ac fide. 
Cic. Fam. i, 7, 2 ; singulari fide. 

And likewise Fam. I3> 21, 2 ; 15, 4, 5 ; Sull. 58; de Rep. 

3, 27- 
Fam. I, 7, 2 qua fide; and likewise Fam. 3, 9, i; Flacc. 

89; Clu. 47. 
Best 20 incredibili fide ; and so Mil. 91. 




Sull. 42 Summa fide; and so de Rep. 3, 27. 

Verr. 2, 2, 2, ea fide. 

Font. 31 quali fide. 

Font. 23 quanta fide. 

Fam. I, 5, 4 fide maiore. 

Fam. 14, II ista fide. 
Nep. Iph. 3, 2 bonus vero civis fideque magna. 

Eum. I, 5 fide cognita. 
With Livy came in the Genitive. 
Liv. 2, 21, 3 quia collega dubiae fidei fuerit. 

44, 35, 10 notae et fidei iam sibi et prudentiae homines. 
Val. Max. 3, 8, Ext. 4 efficacis operae forensis, fidei non latentis 

Athenis Ephialtes. 
Sen. Cont. i Praef. 3 memoria . . . solebat bonae fidei esse. 
Tac. Ann, i, 41, 6 Treveros externae fidei ||externam fidem 

Hist. 3, 5, 12 incorruptae erga Vitellium fidei. 

Justin. (Trogus) 4, 2, 5 spectatae fidei servo. 

8, 3, I melioris fidei adversus socios. 

8, 5, 4 pactio eius fidei fuit cuius ante fuerat. 

9, 8, 19 soUertiae pater maioris, hie fidei. 
II, I, 6 fidei dubiae et mentis infidae. 

Cell. I, 7, I libro spectatae fidei. 

13, 31 (30), 6 librum veterem fidei spectatae. 

14, 2, 5 virum . . expertae fidei. 

18, 5, II ut non turbidse fidei nee ambiguae, sed ut pura? 

liquentisque esset. 
18, 9, 6 Illic igitur aetatis et fidei magnae libro credo. 
Justin. Inst. 4, i, 15 bonae fidei emptori. 

When we find only two instances of the Ablative fide= ''trust- 
worthiness " after Cicero, we may regard them as due to early in- 
fluence, as obviously is the case with the second example. 

Tac. Ann. 12,41 etiam libertorum si quis incorrupta fide, de- 

Cell. 12, 4, I Descriptum definitumque est a Quinto Ennio 

. . qua fide amicum esse. 

A third instance of the influence of Etymological form appears 
in the use of the adjective par, paris. 

For some reason only the Ablative of this adjective appears ; 
unless we accept with H. Peter (S. H. A. Lpz., 1884), the emenda- 
tion of Salmasius and read, Capitol. Ver. i in simili ac paris maies- 
tatis imperio, where the older editors following the codex Palatinus 
and the Bambergensis read pari. This single exception, occurring 



SO late, would be, if admitted, of slight importance to our considera- 
tion ; for the avoidance of the genitive pans by good stylists would 
still remain clear from a citation of the instances. 







Tac. Hist. 


Bacc. II 08 pari fortuna, aetate ut sumus (sc. 

pari), utimur. 
Fam. 15, 4, 10 pari scelere et audacia. 
Clu. 107 Heius, pari integritate et prudentia. 

197 Marucini pari dignitate. 
Sull. 36 eos pari calamitate esse. 

Phil. 3, 25 civis egregius, parique innocentia M. 

7, 6 non quin pari virtute et voluntate 
alii fuerint 
II, 19 cum pari dignitate simus. 
2, 37 pari animo inexercitatum militem. 
I, 95 si quis pari fuerit ingenio. 
71 pari gloria debent esse. 
6 (Gell. I, 6, 16) cum causa pari col- 
legae essent non modo invidia pari 
non erant. 
7, 39 Viridomarus, pari aetate et gratia. 
I, 25 alias pari magnitudine rates. 

4, 2 alterum librum pari magnitudine. 

2, I pari se virtute praebuit. 

3, 5 pari imperio esse. 
7, 5 pari diligentia se praebuit. 

5, 3 pari ac dictatorem imperio. 
19, 2 principes dignitate pari. 

28, II pari fuistis casu. 
3> 9> 3S (4, 8, 38) proeha clade pari. 
3, 51, 9 pari potestate. 
3, 70, I cum consules essent pari potestate. 
23, 26, II velocitate pari, robore animi praestanti. 
26, 49, 13 nobilitate pari. 
37, 40, 8 pari numero Cretenses. 

1, 15 irater pari nobilitate. 

2, 64 pari probitate mater. 

3, 49 pari innocentia agebat. 

1, 13 promptum, artibus egregiis et pari 

2, 60 qui pari virtute fuerint 
6, 20 pari habitu. 
13, 8 effigiem pari magnitudine. 

15, 32 spectacula pari magnificentia. 
15, 56 Scaevinus pari inbecillitate. 

de Orat. 
de Rep. 

B. G. 
B. C. 





Suet. Cal. 

8 infans nomine pari. 
5, 8, 9 (tuba et lituus ) pari forma. 
17, 9, 7 surculi pari crassamento eiusdemque 

Observe that in the last example Gellius would have been kept 
from a symmetrical use of two Genitives of Quality, had he desired 
such symmetry, by the lack of a genitive paris. 

If we add here the instances of dispar we shall have still a clear 
record of only the Ablative. 

Liv. 33, 3, 10 Gortynii haut dispari armatu. 
Tac. Hist. 4, 68 dispari animo. 

Ann. 6 (5), 10 iuvenis haut dispari aetate. 

The genitive paris is very frequent in the Arithmetic of Boetius, 
for instance, i, 5 paris numeri definitio, but this is in the 6th cen- 
tury, so late that for our construction it can have no significance. 

When we come to inquire the reason for this exclusive use of pari 
we hit at once upon the suggestion that it may be due, as in the case 
of facie and specie, to a peculiarity of etymological form. The 
genitive form paris, not to mention its orthographical identity with 
the name of the hero Paris and the second person singular indica- 
tive of pario, coincides in form with the feminine nom. sing, paris 
and the ace. plural paris (cf. Neue) and for this reason it may have 
been avoided. 

A different reason is implied in Lane's remark (Gram., § 1240) 
'* A substantive expressing quality with aequus, par, similis, or dis- 
similis in agreement, is put, not in the genirive, but in the ablative, 
by Cicero, Caesar, Nepos and Livy. " 

These adjectives have at bottom a common idea, and our in- 
ference is that on account of this idea they are not adapted for use 
in the Genitive of Quality and hence do not appear. Such a view is 
not of itself unreasonable and is supported by the circumstance that, 
not only in the authors named, but in all the literature, so far as the 
present collection of instances covers, no example of any of those 
adjectives in the Genitive has been found ; excepting only similis, 
which occurs in Palladius. On the other hand, the force of this in- 
ference is weakened by the fact that all the adjectives named are of 
the same termination in the Genitive except aequus, whose occurrence 
is in good Latin exceedingly rare, Plaut. having three times aequo 





animo adeste ; Cicero, aequo animo once. iEquus is frequent in 
ecclesiastical Latin = bono animo, and occurs twice in Pseudo Polemo 
Foerst. 154 and 155 aequa [media] magnitudine, but this does not 
affect our argument. Perhaps we should have drawn a different 
inference from Lane's remark about aequus, par, similis, if he had 
added, what seems to be equally true, that other adjectives not put 
in the Genitive of Quality are muliebris, incredibilis, horribilis, 
terribilis, trucis, fidelis, comis, lenis, incolumis, qualis and some 
others in -is. Surely with this list before us the suggestion aroused 
by the case of par will return with renewed force. All these adjec- 
tives in -is, -is, -e have a common form for gen. sing. , ace. pi. , fem. 
nom. sing, and masc. nom. sing, as well, and if the genitive pans 
has been avoided through the uncertainty of its form, then every 
genitive of an adjective in -is will be avoided, and none will appear 
except for a special reason. 

The great number of such adjectives in use gives an opportunity 
to test on a large scale the truth of our supposition. 

It is significant, therefore, when in Caesar and Cicero over against 
more than 130 examples of adjectives in -is in the Ablative of 
Quality, only five appear in the Genitive and each for a special reason. 
Nor is this significance removed by the fact that the Ablatives are in 
general four times as frequent as the Genitives in Caesar and Cicero. 

With the writers of Silver Latin the general proportion of Abla- 
tives and Genitives changed, some writers having as many as 13 
Genitives to one Ablative. Yet out of all the 620 Genitives of 
Quality in Silver Latin, only 19 have adjectives in -is. Since of the 
Ablatives of Quality one out of every five has its adjective in -is, it is 
manifest that for some reason the Genitives in -is have failed to ap- 
pear in their due proportion. 

It remains to show the exceptional character of those Genitives 
in -is which do appear. First, we may take the adjective singularis, 
which occurs in the Ablative no less than 24 times in Cicero alone; 
for the orations and philosophical works see Merguet; the instances 
from the letters are: 

Fam. I, 7, 2 L, Racilium et fide et animo singulari. 

5, 5, 2 animus quam singulari officio fuerit 

6, 7, I singulari sum fato 

10, 29 sunt singulari in te benevolentia 
13, 21, 2 est in patronum suum officio et fide singulari 


15, 4, 5 vir cum benevolentia et fide erga populum 
Romanum singulari tum praesentia, magni- 
tudine et animi et consilii 

In spite of the frequency of this adjective Cicero used singularis 

in the Genitive but once (in a passage which Merguet overlooks); 

Pro Sulla 34 maximi animi summi consilii singularis constantiae, 

and there manifestly to accord with the other Genitives animi and 

consilii, which Cicero was accustomed to use together, thus: 

Muren. 34 fortissimi animi summi consilii 

Fam. 3, 10, 7 Magni animi non minimi consilii 
Fam. 10, 19, I fortissimi animi summique consilii 
Font. 4 1 summi consilii et maximi animi 

Caesar uses no instance of the Genitive of Quality, but Hirtiusin 
the 8th book Bell. Gall, uses it twice, 

B. G. 8, 8, 2 singularis enim virtutis veterrimas legiones . . . 

8, 28, 2 Quintus Atius Varus, praefectus equitum, singu- 
laris et animi et prudentiae vir. 

In the first of these instances the contradiction of Caesar's own 
usage (cf. Bell. Civ, 3,59, erant singulari virtute homines, and Bell. 
Civ. 3, 91 Crastinus, vir singulari virtute) is perhaps due to the feel- 
ing that with the verb habebat the ablative would be felt to limit that 
verb as an Ablative of Manner, which the author did not intend. 

In the second instance, the difference in meaning between the 
Genitive animi and the Ablative animo, which was so strongly marked 
in the writers preceding Hirtius, may have influenced the choice of 
this genitive form of expression. With animi determined, the use 
of singularis is not so strange for a writer who had already used it 
once, and who seems not to have felt the objection to its use so 
clearly as did his contemporaries. 

A similar adjective is insignis. The usage of classical and Silver 
Latin was limited to the Ablative of Quality. 

Cic. Att. I, 12, 3 rem esse insigni infamia. 

Liv. 29, 19, 8 puerum forma insigni. 

Tac. Hist. 4, 1 5 Brinno, claritate natalium insigni. 

Ann. I, 41 ipsa insigni fecunditate, praeclara pu- 

2, 73 utrumque corpore decoro, genere insigni. 





6, 31 Smnaces, insigni familia ac perinde opibus. 

11, 301s modesta iuventa, corpore insigni. 

12, 56 ipse insigni paludamento. 

The genitive was introduced by Justinus, a circumstance which 
has been overlooked by J. Benesch, in his treatise - De casuum ob- 
iquorum apud Justinum, &c." (Vienna, 1889) one section of which 
(p. 36 ff.) he has devoted to the Genitive of Quality without observ- 
ing any instance of insignis. 

Justin. 2 7, 4 Solon, vir iustiti^ insignis. 

18, 4, 3 insignis formae virgine. 
24, 8, 5 iuvenem insignis pulchritudinis. 
41, 5, 10 insignis virtutis viro. 

In the same way some 80 adjectives might be mentioned each 
appeanng with greater or less frequency in the Ablative of Qualitv 
but occurring in the Genitive of Quality rarely or only for special 
cause. Large as is the number of instances collected for this investi- 
gation. It is not of sufficient completeness to warrant the statement 
that any given Genitive never occurs. We must be content with 
asserting that no such Genitive has come to light in the course of 
the investigation. 

Thus we can say of incredibilis only that its Genitive is not at 
hand, whereas the Ablative is frequent; 

For instance, of a dozen examples in Cicero take 

frr.m p ^' J"^^* ^' ^' adulesccus incredibili virtute; 

irom L^aesar; B. G. i, 39 qui ingenti magnitudine corporum 

germanos incredibili virtute . 

. ^ . esse praedicabant. 

irom \en, 2, 99 Tiberius, ducum maximus mira et 

incredibili atque inenarrabili nic- 
tate. ^ 

A list of other such adjectives has been given at page 30 to 
which maybe added, difficilis, dulcis, ferialis, grandis, hilaririn- 
columis, menarrabilis, innumerabilis, mirabilis, mortalis, nobilis 
notabihs, pastoralis, pedalis, perennis, pinguis, probabalis, puerilis' 
rega lis semhs, stabilis, talis, tolerabilis, triumphalis, virginalis, semi^ 
cubitahs, quincuncialis, etc. 

Mediocris occurs once in the Genitive and that as early as Cicero 
De Urat. i, 257 et ilia orationis suae cum scriptis alienis compa- 
ratio . . non mediocris contentionis est vel ad memoriam vel ad 


If we try to substitute here the Ablative, we shall observe how 
wide the Ablative would have come from expressing the intended 


The use of the Ablative is shown in 

Cic. Brut. 237 

Murena mediocri ingenio, sed magno stu- 
dio rerum veterum. 

Cses B C. 3, 36, I mediocri latitudine fossam. 

Tac! Ann. 4, n, quis mediocri prudentia nedum tantis rebus 


The eager disposition of the Silver writers to forsake the Ablative 
of Quality and employ the Genitive has sometimes overcome the 
tendency to avoid the Genitives in -is, as is illustrated in the case of 
immanis, whose use by Velleius i, 12, 4 immanis magnitudims 
hostem, stands in contrast with the earlier examples. 

Lucr. 5, 33 immani corpore Serpens. 

Verg. i^n. 3, 427 immani corpore pistrix. 
5, 372 Buten, immani corpore. 
Cses. B. G. ' 4, 1 immani corporum magnitudine homines 
Cic Top 44 immani acerbaque natura. 

de Div. 2, 63 vidimus immani specie tortuque draconem. 

For another illustration of this same inclination we may take 
liberalis, which appears always in the Ablative in Plautus and 

PI. Epid. 43 forma lepida ac liberali captivam. 
Mil. 967 lepida ac liberali formast. 
Persa 130 forma lepida ac liberali est. 
546 specie . . . liberalist. 
Ter. Andr. 123 erat forma . . . liberali. 
Eun. 473 Quam liberali facie. 

682 Honesta facie et liberali. 
Hec. 164 liberali esse ingenio. 

but with Valerius Maximus comes the Genitive. 

Val Max. 5, i, 7 puer eximiae formae et liberalis habitus. 
' 9, 2, Ext. 1 5 liberalis formae, optimae spei puerum. 

A different influence which has operated to overcome this disin- 
clination to use Genitives in -is is to be seen in the case of the adjec- 
tive fortis, which appears regularly in the Ablative; for instance, 
Cic. Sest. i; Brut. 330; Fin. 3, 29; Verg. 4, n. When we find m 
Gell II, 13, 10 in tam fortis facundiae viro, it requires but a 
glance to see'that here an ablative forti facundia would have been 



confusing to the construction after the preposition in. To avoid 
this confusion the author might have had recourse either to an adjec- 
tive, such as facundioso, or to the Genitive of Quality, and the latter 
he did employ. Tenuis is perhaps a Genitive of Quality in 

Cell. 2, 6, 2 vexasse putant verbum esse leve et tenuis ac parvi 


but elsewhere it appears only in the Ablative: 

Ter. Phorm. pi. 5 fabulas tenui esse oratione et scriptura levi. 
Cic. Cato Maj. 35 quam tenui valetudine Africani filius! 
Sen. Contr. i, i, 8 summissa et tenui voce. 
Plin. N. H. 25, 68 centaurium minutis foliis, radice tenui. 
25, 124 caule simplici et tenui. 
27, 76 radice tenui, nigra. 

One more adjective may be mentioned; tristis. 
The Ablative is witnessed by 

Plant. Asin. 401, tristi fronte. 

Cic. Quinct 59 natura tristi ac recondita fuit. 

Sen. Cont. 2, 4, 3 tristi vultu. 

Tac. Ann. 14, 16 tristi vultu. 

The Genitive, on the other hand, is found only in Seneca Rhetor, 
twice in Miiller's text, in the same section. 


Cont. I, 3, 3 *'Erat" inquit '^praeruptus locus et im- 

mensae altitudinis tristis aspectus." 

again i, 3, 3 [et immensae altitudinis tristis aspectus] 

electus is potissimum locus ut damnati 
saepius deiciantur. 

In the first of these passages the MSS. do not have the words 
tristis aspectus, which the editor inserts, following the conjecture of 

In the second passage, however, where the MSS. do have the 
phrase **et . . . aspectus," Konitzer regards the whole phrase 
as an interpolation and it is bracketed accordingly. So then we 
have authority for but one tristis, and that either in a questionable 
passage, following the MSS. reading, or in a conjectured reading, 
following the editor's. 

But since this is the only instance of the Genitive tristis at hand 
from any author; since, moreover, Seneca elsewhere uses the Abla- 
tive tristi, and, finally, since out of the 88 examples of the Geni- 



tive of Quality used by Seneca this doubtful or conjectural tristis is 
the only one containing an adjective in -is, it would seem as if 
Konitzer might have done better if after striking out the doubtful 
tristis aspectus he had not inserted it in the other place. 

In the fifth place among the influences upon usage which arise 
from etymological form we may consider the avoidance of the 
rhymes-orum,-orum;-arum,-arum. It is already well known that 
this influence has operated in some other constructions, for in- 
stance, in Livy, in determining the choice between the gerund and 
gerundive constructions; thus, compare consilium oppuquandi Syra- 
cusas with consilium oppugnandarum Syracusarum; but that it 
has operated to restrict the use of the Genitive of Quality has been 
overlooked hitherto. 

In eariy Larin the use of the Genirive of Quality, whether form- 
ing a rhyme or not, is so rare that we have no ground for attrib- 
uting the use of the Ablative summis ditiis in Plaut. Capt. 170 and 
Poen. 60 to an inclinarion to avoid the rhyme of summarum diti- 
arum; nor should we so attribute Pseud. 12 18 crassis suris or 
Pseud. 852 aquilinis ungulis. But in the classical and Silver writers 
the genitive plural is also so rare that Kuhner, Lat. Gram., § 86, 4, 
can comment to Cic Fam. 4, 8, i, and Rose. Am. 6, 17 '^sonst aber 
vermeidet die Lateinische Sprache von korperiichen oder geistigen 
Eigenschaften den Gen. des Plurals." If the Genitive plurals are 
truly so rare whether rhyming or not, then we should be left with 
no other inference than that the writers avoided the Genitive plural; 
but we have to cite a considerable number of instances of the 
Genitive of Quality in the plural where the endings form no rhyme. 

Plaut. Aul. 325 trium litterarum homo. 

Cic. Brut. 286 multarum orationum. 

246 multarumque causarum. 

Here, observe, the rhyme is broken 
by the change of accent caused by 
the insertion of que. 
Orat. 85 valentiorum laterum. 

Tusc. 5, I, 2 tantarum virium. 
de Petit. 9 nullarum partium. 
Att. 13, 29 multarum nuptium: 
Sail. Jug. 85, 10 multarum imaginum. 

Liv. 28, 20 levium corporum. 

44, 4 gravium armorum. 




And Livy has many examples in- 
volving the noun-forms annonim, 
navium, gentium, aetatum, ordinum, 
generum and amphorarum, of which 
those that could form a rhyme 
-orum, -orum, or -arum, -arum are 
used only with numbers, which, of 
course, do not have those genitive 
forms ; as, for instance, novem an- 
nonim. Duorum annorum does not 
seem to occur. 

^^IJ' 2, 93 ingenuarum virtutum. 

Tac. Ann. 4, 31 eluctantium verborum. 

Firm. Mat. 3> 5^ ^5 tantarum facultatum. 

Hieron. Ep. 117, 6 furvarum vestium. 

117, 8 vestium sericarum. 

It is not to be maintained that these rhymes were for every con- 
struction totally avoided. Landgrafs citation of Rose. Am. 103; 
Verr. 4, 126; 5, 121; Mil. 64; Cat. i, 7; Cat. 4, 20; Mur. 21, 
from Cicero alone, will show that they now and then occur. Even 
in the Genitive of Quality we have from Cicero two instances; Orator, 
169, paucorum colorum, and Nat. Deor. 2, 48 aliarum formarum; 
but these are exceptional. 

The commonest expressions in which these rhymes appear in the 
Genitive of Quality are those which seem to be translations of Greek 
adjectives compounded with noXv . Here the Genitive, both in 
singular and plural, is far more frequent than the Ablative. This 
coincidence is remarked by Landgraf (Sex. Rose, p. 163), who cites 
instances from Cicero and Horace. 

Cic. Rose. Am. 17 plurimarum palmarum gladiator 

(cf. TtoXvaTecprf?) 
Att. 13, 29, I Comificia vetula sane et multarum 

nuptiarum (cf. noXvyafio?:.) 
Hor. Od. 3, 9, 7 multi Lydia nominis 

(cf. TtoXvGDVV^OZ.) 

Other instances of such Genitives are in the singular ; 

Plant. Vid. Frg. (148-9) cibi minimi. 

Varro, R. R. 2, 11 non maximi, minimi cibi. 

Cic. Fam. 9> 26, 4 non multi cibi hospitem accipies 

Sueton. Galb. 22 cibi plurimi. 

^* .* 






de Orat. 

Q. F. 

Plant. Bacc. 

And in the plural ; 

35 multi cibi. 

(With all of which compare 

7to\vq)dyo£y TToXvffiroS.) 
i> i> 33 niagni formica laboris 

(cf. TtoXv/Aox^o^,) 
I, 257 multi sudoris. 
2, 13, I multi consili 

(cf. TToXvcppad?)^.) 
3. 6, 3 magnae deliberationis. 

(cf. TtoXvcppovri^.) 
2, 9, 3 multae artis. 

93 [N] multi somni. 
770 magnae dividiae. 

Cic. de Leg. Agr. 2, 36 via Herculanea multarum delicia- 

rum et magnae pecuniae. 
Fronto. ad Am. 2, 1 1 multorum ramorum. 

Apul. Met. 10, 25 multarum palmarum spectatus proe- 


Aside from Genitives of Quality of this particular class, the in- 
stances are very rare in the writings of good stylists. If, now, the 
later writers ceased to be sensitive to such distinctions and em- 
ployed the rhyme where previously it had been avoided, there will 
be no occasion for surprise. Thus Firmicus Maternus could write, 
Math. , 3, 7, 6 magnae mentis, magnorum ac divinorum consiliorum 
viros ; and Polemo (Foerst, p. 182) could write asinus deterrio- 
rum morum, crocodilus deterriorum morum ; Balaena morum de- 
terriorum ; Testudo morum deterriorum & (p. 184) Anguilla mo- 
rum deterriorum ; Rana deterriorum morum, &c. 

From the use of this last noun, mos, moris, morum, the argu- 
ment before us can be well illustrated. Mos is a noun, the idea of 
which it seemed good to Latin writers to express in the Genitive, 
without exception in the singular. Thus : 

Liv. 39, II probam et antiqui moris feminam. 

Veil. 2, 116, 3 vir antiquissimi moris 
Tac. Hist. I, 14 Piso. . moris antiqui. 
2, 64 mater antiqui moris. 
Ann. I, 35 saevum id malique moris. 

16, 5 severaque adhuc et antiqui moris. 
Justin. 14, 2, 4 vestis olim sui moris, 





When, now, in the plural we find 

Plautus, Capt. 

105 antiquis est adulescens moribus. 
708 ut moribus sient (= quibus moribus, 
Ebr. ) 

Stich. 105 quibus matronas moribus. 
Trin. 284 saeculum moribus quibus siet. 

825 omnes . . avidis moribus. 
True. Arg. 5 vi magna servos est ac trucibus. 
Ten Andr. 395 uxorem his moribus. 
Cic. Quinct. 59 omnis his moribus. 

Verr. 3, 62 moribus eisdem. 
Flacc. 26 unis moribus vivere. 

we may be reminded of the principle which Kiihner observed in 
connecrion with Cic. Tusc. 5, 1,2 (Gram., § 86, 4) where he says the 
different case **darf nicht auffallen, da der sing, dieses Wortes cine 
andere Bedeutung hat." But, aside from such a reason for the ap- 
pearance of the ablatives here we should attribute them to the over- 
whelming preference of the eariier writers for the Ablative of Quality. 
It is when we come to Velleius, who used almost no Ablatives of 
Quality, but the Genitive, and who has in the singular moris (cf. 
above), that we are struck with the use of 2, 91, 2 diversis moribus, 
and not diversorum morum. And then Tacitus, who wrote four 
rimes the genitive singular, has, Ann. 17, 19, 3 hominem . . . corruptis 
moribus, and not corruptorum morum. And Aurelius Victor broke 
the symmetry of his construction to say, Caes, 18 doctrinae omnis 
ac moribus antiquissimis, instead of morum antiquissimorum. The 
Ablative appears also in 

Sail. Jug. 4, 7 his moribus. 

Gell. 3, 16, 12 feminam bonis atque honestis moribus. 

I7> I9> 3 hominem corruptis moribus. 
Firm. Mat. 3, 2, 20 honestis moribus. 

3, 3, 10 honestis moribus. 

3, 7, 8 divinis moribus. 

3, 10, 9 bonis consiliis ac moribus. 

When, now, we find in the fourth century Polemo with his *' mo- 
rum pravorum" (Foerst, p. 17, 4, 8) and his '' difficiliorum morum " 
(p. 246, 17) we may attribute the difference in usage, not to a difference 
m the ideas to be expressed by the Ablative plural and the Genirive 
plural, but to a lack in Polemo of that taste which led the eariier 
writers to avoid the rhyme -orum, -orum. 

» • 




Sixth to be considered of the influences of form upon usage is that 
arising from the limitations of meter, and in particular, of the hex- 
ameter. This is an influence which will be felt, not alone in the 
language of the writers of hexameter, but in that also of the Silver 
prose writers, who, as we know, often adopted the phrases of the 
Epic poets with out stopping to consider whether the use of these 
phrases had been affected by considerations due purely to the limi- 
tations of verse. 

If we take a glance at Enn. Ann. 266 (Miiller) . . . longi cupressi 
Stant rectis foliis et amaro corpore buxum, we see that a genitive 
corporis was not available for the fifth foot of this hexameter. If 
we observe Lucretius, we find the following array of Ablatives: 


232 mortali corpore quae sunt. 
242 Ubi, nulla forent aeterno corpore, quorum. 
246 Incolumi remanent res corpore, dum satis acris. 
297 . . aperto corpore qui sunt. 
488 . . soli do reperiri corpore posse. 
177 . . quali sit corpore et unde. 
'^'^ , . immani corpore serpens. 
241 . . corpore nativo ac mortalibus esse figuris. 

5, 1302 . . boves lucas turrito corpore, tetras. 

6, 100 . . condenso corpore nubes. 
6, 361 . . tam denso corpore nubes. 
6, 936 . . quam raro corpore sint res. 
6, 1036 . . raro sunt corpore, et asr. 

Nearly every instance has the Ablative in the fifth foot, where 
the Genitive, for metrical reasons, would be unavailable. 
Observe next Vergil's ^Eneid: 

Praestanti corpore nymphae. 
immani corpore pistrix. 
Buten immani corpore, qui se. 
praestanti corpore Tumus. 
priestanti corpore tauros. 
immani corpore Thybris. 
magno mcerentem corpore Nilum. 
candenti corpore cycnum. 
fuso germanum corpore vidit. 
10, 345 fidens primal vo corpore clausus. 



















And the Georgics: 

4, 539 praestanti corpore tauros. 
4, 550 praestanti corpore tauros. 





Over and over again the Ablative in the fifth foot of the hexa- 

Now, if Roman schoolboys learned Vergil by heart, what limit 
shall we set to the influence of Vergil's phrases upon later usage, 
determined though those phrases may have been for Vergil by purely 
metrical considerations? The general usage did follow the form 
fixed by the hexameter. How completely let the following instances 

Plant. Capt 

Cic. Caea 

Leg. Agr. 

ad Quir. 

Nepos Ages. 
Ovid Am. 

Plin. N. H. 

Tac. Hist. 


Suet. Aug. 

647 macilento ore, naso acuto, corpore 

albo, oculis nigris; 
I II 2 statura hau magna, corpore aquilost. 
27 Caesenius non tam auctoritate gravi 
quam corpore. 

2, 13 vestitu obsoletiore, corpore inculto et 

4 qui numquam segro corpore fuerunt. 
Fam. II, 27, I nondum satis firmo corpore cum esset. 
Nat. Deor. 2, 59 iis corporibus sunt ut. 

8, I statura fuit humili et corpore exiguo. 
2, 10, 28 forti corpore inani fui. 

3, 44 tantoque est corpore quanto. 
7, 12, 1 1 ad hoc iis corporibus. 

24, 26, 13 tot armatosaliquotiensintegro corpore 
7, 24 choromandrae stridoris horrendi, hirtis 

corporibus, oculis glaucis. 
7, 8 1 corpore vesco sed eximiis viribus Tri- 
8, 174 duritia eximia pedum strigoso corpore. 
2, 32 Germanos fluxis corporibus. 

4, 46 producuntur intecto corpore. 
4, 77 intecto corpore, promptus inter tela. 
2, 73 corpore decoro, genere insigni. 
2, 75 Agrippina corpore aegro. 
4, 29 Tubero defecto corpore: 
6, 46 incertus animi, fesso corpore 

1 1, 36 is modesta iuventa, corpore insigni. 
14, 17 multi . . trunco per vulnera cor- 
15* 34 corpore detorto. 

80 corpore traditur maculoso. 

68 corpore fuit amplo atque robusto. 

50 fuit . . corpore enormi. 

30 nam et prolixo nee exili corpore erat. 


Nero 5 1 statura fuit prope iusta, corpore macu- 

loso et faetido. 
Galb. 3 quamquam brevi corpore. 

Fronto ad M Caes. i, 2 valeat integro, inlibato, incolumi cor- 
ad Ant. 2, 6 salubri corpore, velox patiens laboris. 

Gell. 3, I, II corpore esse vegeto. 

5> S> 5 (Verg. ^En. 5, 372) Buten immani cor- 
9, 4, 10 corporibus hirtis. 
I3> 5> I corpore aegro adfectoque ac spe vitae 

tenui fuit. 
i9> 7> 3 corpore, inquit, pectoreque undique 
' obeso. 

^9) '3j 3 ycc^ov? vocaverunt brevi atque hu- 
mili corpore homines. 

And so on to the later writers. 

In comparison with these Ablatives, corpore, the instances of 
the Genitives, corporis, are strikingly few. The first instance is 

Nepos Dat. 

3, I hominem maximi corporis terribilique 

where the genitive corporis is used to make a distinction between 
the derived meaning ** bodily size," and the common literal mean- 
ing *' the body," which the Ablative so regularly expresses. 
Next comes 

Hor. Epist. I, 20, 24 corporis exigui praecanum 

where the ablative corpore would not have fitted the verse. 

Then come the Silver writers, who, other things being equal, 
favored the Genitive. Even they show only a few instances: 

Liv. 28, 20, 3 levium corporum homines 

4i> 9> 5 puerum trunci corporis 
Sen. Cont. 4,Exc. 2 sacerdos non integri corporis 

Sen. Dial. 4, 35, 2 senex infirmi corporis est 

Justinus Praef. i rem magni animi et corp9ris 

(? operis ?) 

And so is the list exhausted until we come to the writers of the 
later time, such as Palladius, who, with a peculiarity of his own 
style, has 

3, 26, I vasti et ampli corporis, sed rotundi potius quam 


4, II, 2 solidi corporis 

4, 1 1, 5 corporis longi 

4, 13, 4 et magni ventris et corporis 

4, 14, I magni corporis 

8, 4, 3 vasti corporis et prolixi 

12, 13, 7 magni corporis 

12, 13, 7 similis corporis 

That such a marked preference for the ablative corpore is not 
without a cause we are enritled to assume; and a manifest cause is 
before us in the influence of the hexameter. Let us not fall, how- 
ever, into the error of supposing that the influence of the hexameter 
must be the only cause which has operated. Cicero and Nepos can- 
not owe their Ablatives to the study of Vergil in school; and while 
we might attribute their ablatives to the hexameters of Lucretius 
and Ennius, if no other source were apparent, we should still be 
forced to recognize a diff'erent reason for Plautus' use of corpore; a 
reason which lies upon the surface in the eariy preponderance of all 
Ablatives of Quality over the Genitives, owing to the undeveloped 
stage of the genitive construction. 

In some of the instances cited the Ablative will have its ground 
in still other causes; for instance, in Cic. Leg. Agr. 2, 13, a Genitive 
corporis inculti et horridi could scarcely have been applied to such 
a transitory quality as that which the author intended to describe. 

So also Tac. Hist. 4, 46 (above) and many other phrases expres- 
sing transitory qualities; cf those having adjectives a?gro, fesso, 
trunco, fluxis, intecto, defecto, valenti, adfecto, etc. 

In Nep. Ages. 8, i it is possible that corpore exiguo is put in the 
Ablative to balance the Ablative statura humili, which is foreordained 
by its adjective humilis to be in the Ablative, this adjecdve not ap- 
pearing in the Genitive of Quality. This possibility is weakened by 
the fact that the only time we find the Genitive corporis exigui, 
Hor. Epist. I, 20, 24, it is required by the meter. 

In Plin. N. H. 7, 24 the Ablative, says Kiihner (Gram. § 86, 4), 
is due to avoidance of the Genitive plural of bodily or mental quali- 
ties. He does not observe that the disuse of the Genitive plural may 
be due to avoidance of the rhyme -orum, -orum. 

A further reason for the appearance of corpore regulariy in the 
Ablative of Quality may be assumed in the close similarity between 
the idea of the body itself and the idea of the parts of the body. 




Everybody wrote the bodily parts in the Ablative, and why not also 
corpore ? 

Whether any of the writers were conscious of imitating the Ver- 
gilian form when they wrote the Ablative corpore it is not for us to 
inquire. That the hexameter poets were free in its use and limited 
in their use of the Genitive by the requirements of their verse must be 

This evidence of a metrical influence upon the use of corpore is 
sustained most clearly by the situation with regard to the use of 
ponderis, pondere. Pondus stands in no such relation to the parts 
of the body as does corpus. Neither is it an external nor a 
transient quality. Guided, accordingly, by the character of its 
idea, we should look for its occurrence in the Genitive rather 
than in the Ablative. Such was the usage of Caesar, one of the most 
correct writers, who has, B. G. 2, 29, 3 magni ponderis saxa, and 
B. G. 7, 22, 5 maximi ponderis saxis, with never the Ablative pon- 
dere. Servius may have had some such idea when he explained 
Verg. JEn. 10, 381 magno pondere saxum, with the remark ''hoc 
est; magni ponderis, ut 'aere cavo clipeum ' (^n. 3, 286) pro 'seris 
cavi;'" just as to ^n. i, 71 he comments **pr^stanti autem cor- 
pore, pro praestantis corporis, ablativum pro genitivo." From 
Cicero Stegmann can quote but two exceptions to the rule that ex- 
pressions of weight appear in the Genitive, and these both consist 
of the same phrase, Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 32 hydriam pr^claro opere et 
grandi pondere and Nat. Deor. 3, 83 amiculum grandi pondere. 
To these may be added two more expressions of weight which Steg- 
mann's observation did not include; Att. 10, i, i filius eodem apud 
me pondere, quo ille fuit, and Acad. 2, 1 2 1 naturalibus fieri aut fac- 
tum esse docet ponderibus et motibus. If we add these, still the 
number is so small that we may regard the Ablative for expressions 
of weight as exceptional. Cicero's use of the Genitive ponderis and 
its natural and logical employment in the pages of succeeding writ- 
ers may be observed from the following instances, added to those 
mentioned from Caesar above. 


Fam. 2, 19, 2 tuae litterae . . . maximi 

sunt apud me ponderis. 

Att. 14, 14, I litteras . . . tuas et magni 

quidem ponderis. 


4, II, 2 solidi corporis 

4, II, 5 corporis longi 

4, 13, 4 et magni ventris et corporis 

4, 14, I magni corporis 

S» 4, 3 vasti corporis et prolixi 

12, 13, 7 magni corporis 

12, 13, 7 similis corporis 

That such a marked preference for the ablative corpore is not 
without a cause we are entitled to assume; and a manifest cause is 
before us in the influence of the hexameter. Let us not fall, how- 
ever, into the error of supposing that the influence of the hexameter 
must be the only cause which has operated. Cicero and Nepos can- 
not owe their Ablatives to the study of Vergil in school; and while 
we might attribute their ablatives to the hexameters of Lucretius 
and Ennius, if no other source were apparent, we should still be 
forced to recognize a different reason for Plautus' use of corpore; a 
reason which lies upon the surface in the early preponderance of all 
Ablatives of Quality over the Genitives, owing to the undeveloped 
stage of the genitive construction. 

In some of the instances cited the Ablative will have its ground 
in still other causes; for instance, in Cic. Leg. Agr. 2, 13, a Genitive 
corporis inculti et horridi could scarcely have been applied to such 
a transitory quality as that which the author intended to describe. 

So also Tac. Hist. 4, 46 (above) and many other phrases expres- 
sing transitory qualities; cf. those having adjectives vcgiOy fesso, 
trunco, fluxis, intecto, defecto, valenti, adfecto, etc. 

In Nep. Ages. 8, i it is possible that corpore exiguo is put in the 
Ablative to balance the Ablative statura humili, which is foreordained 
by its adjective humilis to be in the Ablative, this adjective not ap- 
pearing in the Genitive of Quality. This possibility is weakened by 
the fact that the only time we find the Genitive corporis exigui, 
Hor. Epist. I, 20, 24, it is required by the meter. 

In Plin. N. H. 7, 24 the Ablative, says Kiihner (Gram. § 86, 4), 
is due to avoidance of the Genitive plural of bodily or mental quali- 
ties. He does not observe that the disuse of the Genitive plural may 
be due to avoidance of the rhyme -orum, -orum. 

A further reason for the appearance of corpore regularly in the 
Ablative of Quality may be assumed in the close similarity between 
the idea of the body itself and the idea of the parts of the body. 




Everybody wrote the bodily parts in the Ablative, and why not also 
corpore ? 

Whether any of the writers were conscious of imitating the Ver- 
gilian form when they wrote the Ablative corpore it is not for us to 
inquire. That the hexameter poets were free in its use and limited 
in their use of the Genitive by the requirements of their verse must be 

This evidence of a metrical influence upon the use of corpore is 
sustained most clearly by the situation with regard to the use of 
ponderis, pondere. Pondus stands in no such relation to the parts 
of the body as does corpus. Neither is it an external nor a 
transient quality. Guided, accordingly, by the character of its 
idea, we should look for its occurrence in the Genitive rather 
than in the Ablative. Such was the usage of Caesar, one of the most 
correct writers, who has, B. G. 2, 29, 3 magni ponderis saxa, and 
B. G. 7, 22, 5 maximi pqjideris saxis, with never the Ablative pon- 
dere. Servius may have had some such idea when he explained 
Verg. JEn. 10, 381 magno pondere saxum, with the remark ''hoc 
est; magni ponderis, ut 'aere cavo clipeum ' (^n. 3, 286) pro 'seris 
cavi;'" just as to ^n. i, 71 he comments ''praestanti autem cor- 
pore, pro pnestantis corporis, ablativum pro genitivo." From 
Cicero Stegmann can quote but two exceptions to the rule that ex- 
pressions of weight appear in the Genitive, and these both consist 
of the same phrase, Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 32 hydriam prceclaro opere et 
grandi pondere and Nat. Deor. 3, 83 amiculum grandi pondere. 
To these may be added two more expressions of weight which Steg- 
mann's observation did not include; Att. 10, i, i filius eodem apud 
me pondere, quo ille fuit, and Acad. 2,121 naturalibus fieri aut fac- 
tum esse docet ponderibus et motibus. If we add these, still the 
number is so small that we may regard the Ablative for expressions 
of weight as exceptional. Cicero's use of the Genitive ponderis and 
its natural and logical employment in the pages of succeeding writ- 
ers may be observed from the following instances, added to those 
mentioned from Caesar above. 

Cic. Fam. 2, 19, 2 tuae litterae . . . maximi 

sunt apud me ponderis. 
Att. 14, 14, I litteras . . . tuas et magni 

quidem ponderis. 





Vatin. 9 boni viri iudicent id est max- 

imi momenti et pendens. 
Plane. 4 (merita Plancii) magni . . . 

pendens apud ves esse de- 
I, II, 8 aureas armillas magni pen- 
3> 57 y 7 coronam auream . . parvi 

22, 32, 4 paterae aureae magni pendens. 
22, 32, 9 patera quae pendens minimi. 
33 f 3^y 13 torques magni pendens. 
37 f 46, 3 vasa . . multa magni pen- 
I, I, Ext. 3 magni pendens auree Ami- 

4, I, Ext. 7 magni pendens aurea mensa. 
10, I, 24 aurea magni penderis vasa. 
N. H. 33, 107 ut sit modici penderis. 

37, 24 mirandi penderis (gemmam 
Silv. I, 4, 7 cervix Penderis immensi. 

Ad. M. Caes. i, 5 Eiusdem usus et penderis. 

39, 2, 6 levis simulacrum infiniti pen- 

Since we were awaiting such a predisposition for the Genitive 
penderis, we shall be surprised now to find the literature furnishing 
more instances of the Ablative pondere than of penderis itself. 
The surprise will vanish when we consider where the Ablatives 
occur. They are, in the first place, 

Lucr. 4, 905 tympana pondere magno. 

5, 540 nulle sunt pondere membra. 
5, 558 quam magno pondere nobis. 

5, 975 magno pondere clavae. 

6, 549 tecta. . non magno pondere tota. 
6, 692 mirande pondere saxa. 
5, 401 immani pondere caestus. 
5, 447 ad terram pondere vasto Concidit. 
9, 5 1 2 saxa quoque infesto, volvebant pon- 

10, 381 magno vellit dum pondere saxum. 
5, 577 magno tellurem pondere mensus. 

Everywhere the Ablative in the fifth foot of the hexameter! And 
mark, especially, the unavoidable pondere saxum, saxa, of Lucr. 6, 

Val. Max. 

Curt. Ruf. 




Next Verg. iEn. 

And here Stat. Theb. 



692 and Verg. 9, 512; 10, 381 in comparison with the mere correct 
magni ponderis saxa of Caesar, cited above. The ordinary distinc- 
tion with regard to the usage in expressions of weight has given 
way before the requirements of the hexameter. 

In Her. Epod. 4, 18 navium gravi pondere (Peerlkamp: aere 

navium gravi pondera); 

the Ablative is not required by the meter; but in the pentameter of 

I, 17, 24 ut mihi non ullo pondere terra feret; 

the Genitive was metrically inadmissible. 

Besides the instances already mentioned from the poets and 
Cicero, the following few appear in prose: 

Curt. Ruf 5, 2, 1 1 L millia talentum argenti, non signati forma 

sed rudi pondere. 
Tac. Hist. 2, 22 molares ingenti pondere. 
Ann. 2, 57 corenae aureae magno pondere. 

16, I magna vis auri, rudi et antique pondere. 
Gell. 5, 8, 5 (Verg. iEn. 3, 618) immani pondere caestus. 

Of these few it is interesting to observe that all except one have 
adjectives with the Genitive in -is, the exception being in Tacitus, 
who never uses the Genitive ponderis, and it contains the adjective 
magno, which was frequent in the hexameter. 

Thus, the history of penderis supports the argument that the 
limitations of hexameter have been a factor in determining the use 
of certain Ablatives of Quality. 




If the Ablative is the ''with" case and the Genitive the *'of' 
case, then it is natural that we should feel the relation between an 
Ablative of Quality and a Genitive of Quality modifying the same 
noun to be substantially identical with that which subsists between 
the ideas of ''with" and "of," the former relating the quality to its 
noun in the guise of something appearing with the noun, an attend- 
ant quality of circumstance; the latter in the guise of something 
belonging to the noun, its permanent or essential attribute. Gram- 
marians have all, in a general way, shared this feeling, and if one 
has emphasized the permanency of an attributive, another its essen- 
tiality as the ground of its expression in the Genitive, neither has 
been, in practice, very wide of the truth, and, when in error, has 
been so, not because of a failure to perceive the logical difference 
between Ablative and Genitive, but because of certain circumstances 
attending the history of the development of the two constructions 
hitherto not sufficiently observed. If, from the beginning on, both 
expressions of quality had stood in the same stage of development as 
that in which they stand in the usage of Livy, it is likely that much 
of the apparent inconsistency in their use would have been avoided. 
Historically, such was not the case. In Plautus the Ablative alone 
is common; whether expressing so transitory a quality as a moment's 
good courage, Amph. 671 Bono animo es; a passing shade of bodily 
expression, Asin. 401 tristi fronte, quassanti capite, or so permanent 
and inalterable a quality as the shape of the nose, color of the eyes, 
Capt 647 macilento ore, naso acuto, corpore albo, oculis nigris; 
the stature, Poen. 1 11 2 Statura hau magna, or the degree of one's 
birth. Cist 130 sicyone, summo genere. 

The objection against Kriiger's distinction between a subject 
thought of "wie er ist" and "wie er sich zeigt" held the ground 
that it would often amount to a begging of the whole question for 
us to say what subjective distinction was present to the author's 
mind. Where an undeniable distinction can be drawn between a 
permanent and a transient, an external and an internal, a physical and 
an abstract quality, we shall have ground for the assertion of a dif- 
ference in the author's subjective attitude towards the qualities 



expressed. But, when no such clear distinction appears, are we 
then to deny the subjective difference in the author's ideas ? We 
say in English "a man with a lofty character," and again, "a man 
of lofty character." We speak in both cases of the same man, but 
we feel the difference between the two ideas. Shall we then deny a 
similar subjective distinction to the minds of the Roman writers, 
who said; Cic. de Fin. 2,105 niagno hie ingenio, and Suet, 
gramm. 7, fuisse dicitur ingenii magni (of Antonius Gnipho)? We 
need not contend that ingenium was a different thing in the cases of 
Themistocles and Gnipho, but simply that the two ideas here 
expressed were differently felt. We speak in English of a man "of 
the greatest kindness, " and within an hour we refer to him again as 
"with the greatest kindness." The two notions are distinct, but 
we mean the same individual. Is there not a similar subjective dis- 
tinction expressed when Cicero says, Fam. 13, 23, 2, hominem 
summa probitate, humanitate observantiaque cognosces, and Fam. 
16, 4, 2, suavissimum hominem summi officii summaque humani- 
tatis ? Of course, these English phrases are for illustration, not for 
argument. That a distinction is felt in English is no proof that it 
was felt also by the Latin mind. Its existence in English, however, 
does illustrate the possibility of its existence elsewhere, and it must 
be admitted that if we fancy its existence in Latin we shall scarcely 
be able to look for a setting right through any proof of its non- 

While this characteristic distinction between the "with "and 
"of" cases is largely subjective in the constructions of Ablative and 
Genitive of Quality, yet we should not overlook certain groups of these 
Ablative and Genitives where the distinction to be made is objective. 
Thus, eiusmodi is invariable in the Genitive, offering an objective 
difference from eo modo, which would not be reckoned at all as a 
qualitatis phrase. Again, maximi pretii does not correspond objec- 
tively with an Ablative of Quality maximo pretio, if the latter phrase 
could be found. Again, we should think of very different objects 
if we took in mind first a vallum trium pedum and then a vallum tri- 
bus pedibus; and so with all the expressions of measure in the Geni- 
tive of Quality. Thus also expressions like multi cibi hospitem, multi 
loci; multi sudoris res, etc., are not objectively the same as multo 
cibo hospitem, multo sudore res. The Ablative is too literal. How 
could a "res" be multo sudore? In other highly figurative expres- 



sions, too, like homo trium litteranim the Genitive has no objective 
correspondence with an Ablative. We never find a thief (fur) de- 
scribed as homo tribus litteris. It is interesting to note that nearly 
all the eariy Genitives in use are such as show this objective differ- 
ence from the Ablative. Many of them are figurative, whereas the 
Ablatives are chiefly descriptive of qualities literally construed. A 
few early Genitives which show no objective difference are the fol- 
lowing: Plant. Men. 269 animi perditi; Most. 814 humani ingeni 
||humano ingenio||; Bacc. 7 mi cognominis; Bacc. 770 magnae di- 
vidiae; Enn. Euhem. fig. 4, v. 50 virilis sexus (?) Ten Andr. 608 
multi consilii; C. I. L. 1086 maximoe probitatis. These are unusual 
for early Latin. It is with Cicero that the Genitive first becomes 
common in a use showing what we have called the subjective differ- 
ence between Genitive and Ablative. 

For testing our own ideas of the degree of distinction between 
these two constructions we shall have no clearer field than that af- 
forded by the instances where both Ablative and Genitive appear 
side by side within the limits of the same sentence and especially 
where they modify the same noun. This is our warrant for bringing 
forward in the present chapter examples of the sort just described. 
Our grammarians are accustomed to quote a few well-worn passages 
in illustration of the phenomena before us, and to draw the con- 
clusion that both cases **may often be used indifferently" (A. & 
G., 251, a). **Unterscheidet sich nicht wesentlich," says Draeger. 
"Otherwise there is often no difference" is Gil dersleeve's guarded 
phrase. We have at hand a hundred passages which furnish in- 
stances of enallage, or have been so understood by various com- 
mentators. Taking them up in order we ought to find the truth 
about the relation of the two cases abundantly illustrated. 

I. Plant. Vid. v. 42 Si tibi pudico hominest opus et non malo 

Qui tibi fidelior sit quam servi tui 
Cibique minumi maxumaque industria 
Minime mendace, em me licet conducere 

A Genitive here instead of the Ablative maxuma industria would 
have been foreign to Plautine usage, for industria is an attribute 
used by way of straightforward description and used literally. On the 
other hand cibi minumi is quite a different thing. The idea ex- 
pressed by it is not such as could have been conveyed by cibo minumo. 




The significant fact is that cibi minumi is related to a class of (geni- 
tives which are apparently translations of Greek adjective com- 
pounds in TToXv, as has been noted in Chapter II, page 36. 
These Genitives never appear in Ablative form and seem to have 
come early into use and to have remained fixed in usage as they en- 
tered it. Thus, beside our example of cibi minumi, we may place 
Cic. Fam. 9, 26, 4 non multi cibi hospitem accipies, multi ioci; 
Sueton. Aug. 76 Cibi plurimi erat atque vulgaris fere; Galb. 22, 
cibi plurimi traditur; Varro. R. R. 2, 11 minimi cibi; Fronto 32 
neque est Gratia mea, ut causidicorum uxores feruntur multi cibi. 
Here then we should not say that there is no difference between 
Ablative and Genitive, but rather that the distinction is such as 
would allow neither to be replaced by the other. 

2. Ter. Adel. 441 di boni 

Ne illius modi iam nobis magna civium 
Penuriast antiqua virtute ac fide. 

The Ablatives here are regular according to the usage of Plautus 
and Terence, expressing literal characteristics in immediate and evi- 
dent connection with the subject. The Genitive, a compound of 
modi, is, however, totally different, both in origin and in usage. 
Certainly it was felt throughout all the literature to be so different 
that it was never paralleled by an Ablative form. 

3. Cic. Verr. 5, 30 Inter eiusmodi viros et mulieres, adulta aetate 

filius versabatur, ut eum, etiamsi natura a parentis 
similitudine abriperet, consuetudo tamen discip- 
lina patris similem esse cogeret. 

Assuming that adulta aetate is Ablative of Quality we have euis- 
modi and adulta aetate in the same sentence, though modifying dif- 
ferent nouns. The distinction between compounds of modi and the 
Ablative we have discussed under the preceding example. Eius- 
modi is like the other compounds of modi, appearing always in the 
Genitive. The regularity of aetate in the Ablative of Quality is shown 
by Cicero's use of it in the following passages: Verr. 3, 160 in epulis 
adulta aetate inter impudicas mulieres versatus; Or. post Red. 28 
quacunque aut aetate aut valetudine esset; Quir. 6 iam spectata 
aetate filius; Deiot. 27 is ea existimatione eaque aetate saltavit; Clu. 
51 qua (aetate) turn eram; Div. Caec. 70 accusatorem ea aetate, 





cum aedilitatem petat; Acad. 2, 125 innumerabiles paribus in locis 
esse eisdem nominibus, honoribus . . aetatibus; Off. 2, 87 iste 
fere aetate cum essemus, qua es tu nunc; Nat. Deer, i, 81 decs ea 
. . aetate; Cat. Maj. 47 cum ex eo (Sophocle) quidem iam adfecto 
aetate quaereret; Tusc. 5, 62 adulescens improvida aetate; Fam. 10, 
3, 3 consul designatus, optima aetate, summa eloquentia; Att. 4, 16, 
3 qui et aetate et valetudine fuit ea qua memenisti. Aside from 
De Div. 2, 88, which will be discussed at No. 5 below, there is but 
a single example of the Genitive to set over against these Ablatives. 
Div. Caec. 41 eiusdem aetatis nemo aut pauci, and this, in view of 
its solitude as a Genitive of Quality, may possibly be construed as a 
possessive = *'no one of the same period," though that is forced, 
the natural interpretation being as Genitive of Quality = **no one 
of the same age (/. e., ^j years)." 

4. Cic. Verr. 

14, 18. In hac insula extrema est fons aquae 
dulcis, cui nomen Arethusa est, incredibili mag- 
nitudine plenissimus piscium. 

Roby cites this as an example of the Genitive of Quality, though 
without calling attention to the juxtaposition of the Ablative in- 
credibili magnitudine. If we are not to regard aqu^e dulcis as a 
genitive of the ** Particular Kind or Contents : that in or of which 
a thing consists" (Roby, § 1302), or a "Genitive of Sort, Ma- 
terial " (Roby, §1304), then we must at least inquire whether the 
quality '* aquae dulcis" does not pertain to a fons in a way distin- 
guishable from that in which its ** incredibili magnitudine" does. 
This difference could be felt in spite of the fact that both were alike 
permanent qualities and not transitory, and both internal as much as 
external. If the difference is that aquae dulcis is corporeal while 
magnitudine is abstract, then the cases ought, by our expectarion, 
to be reversed, the abstract appearing in the Genitive and vice versa. 
But Roby has involved us in needless difficulty. Aqu^e dulcis is not 
a Genitive of Quality but a Genitive of Material. Lane calls the 
construcrion (gram., p. 202) Genitive of Definition. 

Were we still to assume that Roby's interpretation of aquse dul- 
cis were right, we might at least show that incredibili magnitudine 
could hardly have appeared in the Genitive of Quality. Cicero uses 
magnitudo only in the Ablative. Verr. 4, 65 simulacrum lovis ea 


magnitudine, ut intellegi posset ad amplissimi templi ornatum esse 
factum ; 4, 103 dentes eburneos incredibili magnitudine; Sest. 26 
vir incredibili fide, magnitudine animi, constantia ; De Orat. 2, 299 
fertur incredibili magnitudine consilii fuisse Themistocles ; Nat. 
Deor. 2, 92, sidera magnitudinibus immensis ; De Div. 231 
mirabili magnitudine uvam invenit ; Rep. 6, 1 7 sol . . . tanta 
magnitudine, ut cuncta sua luce compleat. In addition to 
this fact, the avoidance of the Genitive of Adjectives in -is, -is, 
which includes incredibilis, would give us a double reason why with 
aquae dulcis already written, a change of construction to the Abla- 
tive would have to appear. 

5. Cic. De Div. 2, ^2> Nominat . . Panaetius . . Anchialum et Cas- 

sandrum, summos astrologos illius aetatis, qua 
erat ipse, . . hoc praedictionis genere non usos: 

Although at first glance illius aetatis looks like a Genitive of 
Quality, it needs but a moment's attention to the fact that the three 
astrologers belonged to the same period but were not the same num- 
ber of years old to see that the meaning is probably = greatest 
Astrologers of that age in which he lived, where qua is an '*in" 
case ; erat = vivebat ; and illius aetatis = huius saeculi, a possessive, 
and no Qualitatis at all. Had the meaning been that Anchialus and 
Cassander were men of the same years as Pan^tius, born under the 
same star, we should look for eiusdem and quae. 

6. Cic. Arch. 31 Quare conservate hominem pudore eo, quern 

. . ., ingenio autem tanto, quantum . . ., 
Causa vero eiusmodi, quae . . comprobetur. 

Mirmont (Ed. Paris, 1895) comments " Le desir d'avoir une 
periode symmetrique a conduit Ciceron i. faire une construction 
singuliere; Un homme d'une honorabilit6, . . . d'un genie 
. . . d'une cause." And J. S. Reid (Ed. Cambr., 1897), re- 
marks, in the same manner, ** Causa eiusmodi parallel to pudore eo, 
ingenio tanto, so eiusmodi is treated as though it were an indeclin- 
able adjective. . . . The use of causa as a qualitative ablative 
is noticeable, since causa cannot by any stretch be regarded as a 
quality residing in a man." It is true the phrase causa eiusmodi is 
odd, but if we free ourselves from the idea that the Ablative of 



Quality must express a quality -residing in a man," and come to 
understand it as setting forth a circumstance or quality perceived in 
connection with the man, we shall be prepared to accept causa with 
any adjective as an Ablative of Quality. 

The genitive here is again a compound of modi. 
In a different construction we find this same phrase occurring in 
Cic. Clu. 51 in eiusmodi causa. 

To avoid this construction of causa which seemed so strange 
Wolfflin proposes. Arch. XI. 484, with a different punctuation, the 
interpretation of causa as nominative, and this possibility ought not 
to be overlooked. 

7. Cic. Fam. i, 7, 1 1 Lentulum eximia spe, summse virtutis adules- 

centem . . . fac erudias (summa virtute M 
summae virtutis G R M^). 

Kriiger cites this example as given, to illustrate his statement 
that the Genitive shows the subject - wie er ist," the Ablative '^ wie er 
sich zeigt," and translates -einen sehr tugendhaften Jiingling der 
treffliche Hoffnungen erweckt" Zumpt cites the same passage 
in illustration of his statement that beyond a certain point 
no sure line can be drawn between Ablative and Genitive. Tyrrell 
reads as above cited, without comment, and so do Supffle, Watson 
and Muirhead. Mendelssohn corrects the error into which the 
editors have fallen by reading here with M., Lentulum eximia spe 
summa virtute. The correctness of the reading of M is sustained by 
two facts which have been brought to light by the present investiga- 
tion. First, if the Genitive of Quality summse virtutis had been 
used here, it would have been the first instance of its use in Latin 
literature and contrary both to the general usage of the time and to 
that of the author here using it. There are only three instances of 
summus in the first declension used in the Genitive of Quality by 
Cicero previous to 59 B. C, the date of this letter. Verr. 2, 3, 103 
summae industriae; Font. 16 summae auctoritatis; Rose. Com. 16 
summae existimationis. Add to these Sull., 34 summi consilii 
Verr. 2, 3, 103 summi laboris and Font. 41 summi consilii and the 
number of instances of summus in either declension in the Geni- 
tive of Quality remains small. Although few, these instances might 
have given Cicero the analogy for a logical use of summae virtutis in 
this place if Cicero had so elected. That he did not so elect is evi- 



dent from his use ofsumma virtute in Verr. 2, 3, 60, and Sull. 42, and 
later in De Or. 3, 87 summa virtute et prudentia; Fam. 4, 6, i 
summo ingenio summa virtute filium; Fam. 11, 22, 2 hominem 
summo ingenio summa virtute; Phil. 3, 36 summa prudentia virtute 
Concordia; Phil. 10, 3 summa virtute gravitate constantia. Not 
until towards the end of Cicero's life, when the Genitive of Quality 
had greatly spread, in several channels, and been used by such a 
conservative writer as Caesar, did an instance of summae virtutis 
creep into Cicero's use; Cat Maj. 59 Lysander Lacedaemonius, vir 
summae virtutis. In the second place the use of such a Genitive 
as summae virtutis by the side of eximia spe is unlikely because of 
the usage of spe. 

It has been pointed out at page 25 that spe is used in the 
Ablative of Quality in early Latin and in Cicero, and later, to de- 
note the hope which the subject feels. In the instance before us, 
however, spe is not the hope which the subject feels, but the hope 
which the subject (Lentulus) awakens and which the observer feels, 
diflfering thus objectively from the spe of the early examples. Now 
it is not strange that Cicero, writing in the year 56 B. C, before the 
use of many Genitives of Quality was strong about him, should have 
followed the unbroken usage of the early time, and of his own, and 
written down even this different kind of hope in the Ablative, just 
as he wrote summa virtute in the Ablative. But had he been in the 
mood for coining new Genitives, as he must have been had he 
written summae virtutis, then is there not a great probability that he 
would also have taken advantage of the objective difference between 
the old **hope" idea of spes and his new ** promise" idea, and 
coined also the Genitive spei, instead of leaving that for Caesar in 
the next decade ? That Cicero did not coin spei is evidence that he 
did not coin virtutis, but wrote, as M preserves the reading, summa 

8. Cic. Q. F. 2, 9, 4 Lucretii poemata ut scribis, ita sunt, multis 

luminibus ingenii, multae tamen artis. 

Muller reads as above, with the critical comment || non multis 
multi — etiam pro tamen. Or. Wesenb. Baiter. Infinitus est numerus 
conjecturarum ||. Tyrrell cites || ita . . . . artis ] M; lita pro ita 
R.; non ita sunt, Vict; non multis luminibus, Em.; non multae 
artis, Kl. ; Multae etiam artis, Or. ; ut scribis ita sunt, multis lumini- 



bus ingenii; multae tamen artis esse cum in veneris, virum te putabo; 
Si Salustii Empedoclea legeris, hominem non putabo, H A / 
Munro. || ' ' J- 

All the questions concerning the reading of this much disputed 
passage we may dismiss from the present discussion, since in every 
case we are left with an Ablative luminibus and a Genitive artis, the 
nature of which will be the same whether we read mult« or nullius. 
The difficult questions of interpretation, also, we shall not attempt to 
decide. It is, however, at the least, worthy of remark that plurals 
appear oftenest in the Ablative, as does luminibus; and that this 
Ablative is clearly felt as a -with " case and hence is logically used. 
On the other hand multae artis is highly figurative, as Tyrrell notes, 
to Fam. 7, i, 2, where Rose. Am. 6 and Fam. 9, 26, 4 are also cited! 
Our phrase would correspond to a Greek adjective TtoXvTexvos 
and the regular appearance of such phrases in the Genitive has been 
discussed under No. i. 

9. Cic De Leg. 3, 45 Quo verius in causa nostra vir magni ingenii 

summaque prudentia, L. Cotta, dicebat . . . 
nihil actum esse de nobis. 

B. & K. no variant. Orelli & Baiter read magno ingenio and 
annote II O. cum Davisio ||. **Eine eigenthiimliche Mischung" re- 
marks Stegmann over this example. The comment of Feldhiigel 
(cited by Du Mesnil, Lpz. 1879), is to the same effect, and supports 
the reading by the well-known passages from Cic. Brut. 67, 237; 
Nep. Dat. 3, i; Cic. Fam. i, 7, n, and Off. i, 19, 99, although 
of these none shows a Genitive ingenii, whereas the first shows 
an Ablative ingenio. The oddity of the example, to Feldhugel's 
mind, consists apparently merely in the juxtaposition of the two 
cases. Certainly there is nothing odd in Cicero's use of the Abla- 
tive summa prudentia. Cf. Fam. 3, 7, 5 homo summa prudentia; 
Fam. 4, 2, 2 summaque prudentia; DeOr. 3, 87 summa virtute et 
prudentia; Phil. 3, ^6 summa prudentia virtute concordia; Phil. 2, 
13 summo ingenio summaque prudentia. But with this last ex- 
ample, summo ingenio summaque prudentia in mind, Stegmann 
may well have thought magni ingenii summaque prudentia odd; 
and especially when he remembered the forty-five instances of in- 
genium in the Ablative of Quality which he had cited from Cicero 
(to which may be added twelve more from Cicero, which Stegmann's 



investigation did not include). The use of ingenio in the Ablative 
of Quality by all the early writers as well as Cicero is overwhelm- 
ingly preponderating. 

Plautus uses it 13 times; Terence 8 times; Pacuvius twice; 
"Ennius, Caecilius and Afranius each furnish an example of its use. 
Over against this multitude of early Ablatives only one early Geni- 
tive ingenii is at hand; Plant. Most. 814 Atque esse existumo 
humani ingeni; and there the text is disputed, many editors read- 
ing ingenio. 

Cicero's own usage furnishes six instances which seem like 
Genitive of Quality with ingenii, besides the one before us. Caec. 
5 video summi ingenii causam esse; Q. Rose. 48 est hoc princi- 
pium improbi animi miseri ingenii, nuUi consilii (where Miiller 
reads principio); Att. i, 20, i te . . . moderatissimum fuisse 
vehementissime gaudeo idque neque amoris mediocris et ingenii 
summi ac sapientiae iudico; De Or. 2, 300 videsne quae vis in 
homine acerrimi ingenii, quam potens et quanta mens fuerit.? 
Brut, no in quibusdam laudandi viri etiam maximi ingenii non 
essent probabiles tamen industria (here, again, the text is in dis- 
pute): Orat. 90 est autem illud acrioris ingenii, hoc maioris artis. 
Stegmann omits three of these, but cites another, Phil. 14, 28 
which, however, will be found to read maximi animi, not ingenii. 

Of the six examples just cited three involve constructions which 
are widely different from the ordinary Genitive of Quality. Thus, 
in Caec. 5, causam is only figuratively the subject of ingenii; in Att. 
I, 20, and Orat. 90 the Genitives are properly not qualitatis at all, 
but possessives. In two other passages the reading of the Genitive 
is in dispute and this leaves but a single unquestioned Ciceronian 
instance to support our passage, against the 57 instances in which 
the Ablative is used. The manuscripts and early editions of the 
De Legibus on which the text of our passage rests are not of the 
most satisfactory kind. The irregularity of ingenii raises the sug- 
gestion that Davis and his followers may be right, in spite of the 
MSS., and Cicero may have written here magno ingenio. Other- 
wise we have certainly '*eine eigenthiimliche Mischung." 

10. Cic. Brut. 237 P. Murena mediocri ingenio sed magno studio 

rerum veterum litterarum et studiosus et non im- 
peritus, multae industriae et magni laboris fuit. 






This is one of the oft-cited instances of both Ablative and Geni- 
tive in the same sentence. Stegmann characterizes it as similar to 
the instance we have just discussed, *' an odd mixture," Kruger, 
on the other hand, sees in it the fair illustration of his law, - soil also 
eine innere geistige oder sittliche eigenschaft als characteristisch 
vorherschend und das Wesen einer Person bezeichnend, dargestellt 
werden, so kann nur der Genetiv stehen. Soil sie dagegen 
nur als eine an der Person erscheinende dargestellt werden, 
ganz abgesehen davon, ob sie zu dem Wesen derselben gehore! 
so steht der Ablativ." He translates accordingly, M. zeig/e wenig 
Genie, aber einen grossen Eifer fur das Alterthum, Fleiss und 
Anstrengung /agen in seinem Wesen, For the illumination of this 
passage let us quote the sentence which follows it. Brut. 237 L. 
Turius parvo ingenio, sed multo labore, quoquo modo poterat s^pe 
dicebat . . . , and beside this let us set Brut. 240 Q. Pompeius 
A. R, qui Bithynicus dictus est, biennio quam nos fortasse maior, 
summo studio dicendi multaque doctrina, incredibili labore atque 
mdustria. The quality of L. Turius described by multo labore is 
the same, objectively, as that of Murena described by multi laboris. 
So are the incredibili labore atque industria of Pompeius, considered 
objectively, the same as the mult^e industriae et magni laboris of 
Murena, and while special reasons may be given for the case of each 
mstance where it appears; thus, that incredibili, preferred in the 
Ablative, because of its form [cf. page 32], drew labore and in- 
dustry with it; that multa doctrina is put in Ablative for the sake of 
symmetry with summo studio and the Ablatives following; and that 
multo labore is influenced by the neighborhood of ingenio, which 
as we have seen page 54, is regular for Cicero; yet it must be 
admitted that the distinction in question is purely subjective, if it is 
felt at all. Kruger recognizes such a distinction with the comment 
''es leuchtet heraus ein, dass esingewissen Fallen darauf ankommt, 
wie der Schriftsteller eine Eigenschaft betrachtet und darstellen will.'' 
The weakness of such subjective interpretation we have discussed 
already at the opening of this chapter. Each reader must judge for 
himself what distinctions lay in the author's mind. It is not impos- 
sible that the use of the Genitives here was influenced by the at- 
tempt on Cicero's part to gain at once balance and variety of style 
Six attributes are expressed, two by two, for the sake of balance 
two m the Ablative, two in the form of adjectives, and two in the 
Genitive for the sake of variety. 

II. Cic. Fam. 4,8, i neque monere te audeo, praestanti prudentia 

virum, nee confirmare maximi animi hominem 
unumque fortissimum. 

This example illustrates again how far from unanimous the 
grammarians have been in their views of these constructions, for 
Kiihner cites this instance to illustrate that the genitive sets forth the 
Subject wie er ist, the Ablative wie er sich zeigt; Kiihner agrees with 
Kruger, interpreting ' * Der du vorzugliche Klugheit zeigst, aber 
maximi animi von dem Charakter. " Zumpt sees here an illustration 
of his statement that ' ' im ubrigen lasst sich keine scharfe Grenze 
Ziehen. " Madvig quotes the passage to illustrate that there is no 
difference between the Ablative and the Genitive. Draeger remarks 
over it, ' ' Wahrscheinlich nur der Abwechslungs wegen stehen beide 
Casus in demselben Satz." 

That the use of the different cases serves the rhetorical purpose 
of variety which Draeger recognizes may be at once admitted, and 
this admission need not necessitate the giving up of Zumpt's con- 
tention that there is keine scharfe Grenze, if we will interpret 
'■ ' Scharfe " to suit the case. It is possible, however, to bring into 
the discussion here two facts apparently unnoticed by the grammar- 
ians which go to show that Cicero did not use these cases '*nur" 
der Abwechslungs wegen, but in recognition of a clear distinction 
between the force of Ablative and Genitive. The first of these has 
been alluded to already in connection with De Leg. 3, 45 above. It 
is the fact that homo summae, etc. , prudentiae was a thing unknown 
to Cicero's usage, homo summa prudentia being the old-fashioned 
form of phrase with which he and his predecessors always character- 
ized a man of this description. Compare not only Fam. 3, 7, 5; 4, 
2,2; De Or. 3, 87; Phil. 2, 13 and 3, 36, quoted above, but also 
Alt. 16, 16, B 8; Clu. 47; Clu. 107; Rab. Perd. 26; De Div. 2, 
50; Case. 34, for Cicero's unvaried use of prudentia in the Ablative. 
So, then, Cicero has not chosen to use here an Ablative instead of a 
Genitive for the mere sake of variety, but he used the Ablative be- 
cause it was the only form of this idea familiar to him, the Geni- 
tive of Quality prudentiae not yet having been formulated. It may 
be noted here, too, that had Cicero been inclined at this time to in- 
vent the Genitive prudentiae, as Hirtius did two or three years later, 
he would hardly have done it in connection with this adjective praes- 



tanti, which seems, like most adjectives in-is, to furnish no instance 
of use in the Genitive of Quality. 

The second fact is that to Cicero's mind the difference between 
vir maximi animi and vir maximo animo was an objective difference, 
distinctly marked. Attention has been called in a previous chapter, 
page 15, to the change of meaning undergone by animo between the 
time of Plautus and that of Cicero. Cicero is the writer who first 
shows by the use of the Genitive of Quality the distinction in 
meaning between animus = character and animus == the frame of 
mind. And while the great prevalence of the Ablatives bono animo, 
etc., led to the occasional use of the Ablative phrase where the 
Genitive would have suited better the logic of the situation, yet 
Cicero never went so far as to use the phrase maximo animo where 
he referred to the character, but only maximi animi. Indeed, out of 
ninety-nine cases in which he does use the Ablative of Quality with 
animo, to which may be added the sixty-three cases of animo in 
earlier writers, only one contains the phrase maximo animo, and that 
is Fam. 4, 13, 7 extremum illud est, ut te orem et obsecrem animo 
ut maximo sis nee solum memineris, etc., where plainly the phrase is 
only a rhetorical exaggeration of bono animo sis and has not at all 
the force of the Genitives maximi animi. For all Cicero's urging, in 
the passage just cited, Figulus could not at will have become vir 
maximi animi, though he might have become, for the time being, 
maximo animo, which is objectively quite a different thing. 

12. De Nat. Deor. 2, 48 Nee enim hunc ipsum mundum pro certo 

rotundum esse dicitis; nam posse fieri ut sit alia 

figura, innumerabilesque mundos alios aliarum 

esse formarum. 

Alia figura is regular. Aliarum formarum is unusual and seems 

to be prompted by the same desire for variety which prompted also 

the use in the second phrase of a synonym formarum in place of 

figura, together with a different construction of the verb and the use 

of alios in the distributive sense. Aliarum formarum is the more 

remarkable, too, because in addition to being a Genitive of 

Quality in the plural, which is in general uncommon, it involves the 

rhyme arum -arum, which all good writers preferred to avoid, cf. 

page 35. This is the only instance of formarum in the Genitive 

of Quality, and it is farther remarkable, because at this time there 



was only the Ablative of the singular in use, the Genitive formae not 
appearing until Horace. 

13. Cic. Phil. 2, 13 vir summo ingenio summae prudentiae. 

Concerning this instance cited by Miihlmann, which contradicts 
Cicero's unvaried usage in respect to prudentiae, it is necessary only 
to observe that the modern editors all read summaque prudentia, 
to which the critical editions record no variant. 

14. Att. 14, 14, 2 quum dedissem ad te litteras VI. kalend satis 

multis verbis, tribus fere horis post accepi tuas, 
et magni quidem ponderis. 

Cicero would hardly allow a genitive to stand here in the place 
of multis verbis, because of the objection to the rhyme orum -orum, 
page 35. The Genitive magni ponderis is justified also, on 
several grounds. First, the Genitive is logical for expressions of 
weight (which is an inherent and permanent quality), as we have re- 
marked at page 43. Second, it coincides with Cicero's usage, 
which has, with one exception, the metaphorical expressions of 
weight in the Genitive. Thus, Vatin, 9 boni viri iudicent, id est 
maximi momenti et ponderis; Plauc. 4 (merita Plaucii) magni . . 
ponderis apud vos esse debere; Fam. 2, 19, 2 tuae litterae . . maximi 
sunt apud me ponderis; and here, litteras magni ponderis. The ex- 
ception is Att. 10, I, I filius eodem est apud me pondere. On the 
other hand, Cicero uses twice grandi pondere in the Ablative; Cic. 
Verr. 2, 4, 32, hydriam grandi pondere and Nat Deor. 3, S$ ami- 
culum grandi pondere, both times of literal physical weight. 

Third, there is occasion here for a variation from the Ablative 
phrase, which has just been used, for the sake of emphasis, and 
Cicero has also sought this through the use of et — quidem. This 
letter which he is acknowledging was, indeed, magni ponderis, for 
it was important, that is, metaphorically magni ponderis, and it was 
bulky, literally magni ponderis. Its contents included: ist, news of 
**Quintus noster coronatus "; 2d, the jokes about Vestorius and 
Pherionum; 3d, the defense of Brutus and Cassius; 4th, matters of ista 
TioXiriKGotapa) 5th, Atticus, counsel concerning the Ides of March; 
6th, news of Antonium de provinciis relaturum (this might be im- 
portant); 7th, Rapinas ad Opis; 8th, hortaris me ut historias scribam; 





9th, de omnibus meis consiliis ut sen bis . . . fiat; loth, quod me 
cogitare jubes; nth, pleasing little postscript. 

15. Caes. B. G. 7, 39 Eporedorix iEduus, summo loco natus adu- 

lescens et summae domi potentiae, et una Viri- 
domarus, pari aetate et gratia sed genere dispari, 
. . . convenerant. 

Many considerations might be advanced here as affecting the use 
of Ablative and Genitive respectively. In the first place the Abla- 
tives pari and dispari are made necessary by the non-existence of the 
Genitive paris; see page 27. Again, a variety to the style is 
afforded by the alternation of constructions. Again, had an Abla- 
tive summa domi potentia been used, the style would not have been 
so clear, for after summo loco natus and the co-ordinate conjunc- 
tion et another Ablative would not have suggested so infallibly the 
different dependence of the idea expressed by summae potenti^e. 

16. Nep. Dat. 3 Thuyn, hominem maximi corporis terribilique 

facie, quod et niger et capillo longo barbaque 
promissa, optima veste texit. 

This is another of those examples which have gone the rounds 
of the grammarians and been used, in turn, to illustrate the views 
of each. 

To Draeger it shows no difference in the meanings and appears 
thus **nur der Abwechslungswegen." To Zumpt it shows no sharp 
distinction between the cases. 

To Kriiger the Genitive appears as relating to the very being of 
the man, the Ablative only to his appearance, readily alterable. 
Lane translates so as to show the characterisric difference "a man 
of gigantic frame and with an awe-inspiring presence. " 

Lupus comments, *'Der Genetivus und der Ablativus Qualitatis 
stehen hier neben einander ohne wesenlichen Unterschied des 
Begriffs" and later he says the construction is due ^'nur dem 
Bedurfniss der Abwechslungs. " In like manner Stegmann says (p. 
243): '' Nicht befreunden kann ich mich mit subtilen distinctionen, 
wie sie Heraeus, S. 116, anm. 2, gibt, wenn er . . . Nep. Datam 
14, 3» I • • . durch die Bemerkung erklaren will ; das schreckliche 
aussehen wurde gemildert, wenn er sich haupthaar und bart kurz 
schneiden liesz." 


That there is any * * Bediirfniss der Abwechslungs " for the sake 
of the style here is a thing difficult to see. On the contrary there 
is one fact, overlooked by all the commentators, which has abso- 
lutely determined the usage in one-half of this passage, and that is 
the form of the word facie, as pointed out in the preceding chapter. 
Had Nepos desired to express here an idea more logically to be 
expressed by the Genitive he would have been driven to forsake his 
desire by this fact of form alone. 

With the use of facie, then, prescribed from the beginning, if the 
author felt a distinction between Ablative and Genitive he was only 
free to manifest it in his use of the Genitive and this manifestation 
seems to occur. 

A Genitive corporis is almost unknown to Latin literature before 
Livy, the only instances at hand being the one before us and a 
passage from Hor. Epist. i, 20, 24 where the Genitive form is required 
by the metre. On the other hand, 35 instances of the Ablative 
corpore can be cited previous to Livy and almost as many later. 
It is remarkable that of all the instances of corpore in the Ablative not 
one has the adjective maximo. Perhaps a reason for this can be 
found if we consider some of the adjectives which do appear, such 
as these: albo, aquilo, immani, praestanti, firmo, exiguo, incolumi, 
gravi, infermo, aegro, inculto, horrido, magno, candenti, fesso, 
insigni, detorto, vesco, decoro, integro, adfecto, obeso, brevi, 
humili, minori, vegeto, valenti, salubri, inlibato. 

All these Ablatives refer to the literal body. What, then, would 
be logically homo maximo corpore ? The man with the largest 
body, in comparison with several or all others. But what is the 
meaning in our example, hominem maximi corporis? Lane has 
rendered it a ' ' man of gigantic frame. " By a simple rhetorical figure 
the size of the body has come to be put for the body itself, and the 
figurative expression is put in the Genitive, just as in the earlier 
instances, Fam. 7, i, 2; 9, 26, 4; Most. 782; Men. 100; Aul. 325, 
and those mentioned on page 35 ff. This difference between the 
literal and the figurative domains of the ideas gives a ground for a 
distinction between the use of the Ablative and the Genitive ideas. 

17. Sail. Hist. 2, 16 Maur,=Suet. de Gramm. c. 15; " ut Lenaeus 

. . . Sallustium historicum, quod eum (scil. Pom- 
peium) oris probi, animo inverecundo scripsisset, 



acerbissima satira laceraverit." (Inc. 75 D. 41 
K. II, 21 G. II, p. 586 Br.) Praterea'cf. 
Sacerdot (VI, p. 46,) iHud de Pompeio, qui 
colons erat rubei, sed animi inverecundi. Plin. 
VII, 53: ' Magno Pompeio Vibius quidam . . . 
et Publicius fuere similes illud os probum red" 
dentes,' id. XXXVII 14; 'erat et imago Cr. 
Pompeii e margantis . . . illius probi oris vener- 
andique per cuncas gentes'|| probi] VLO, improbi 
N G O Kritz, sed illud legerat Plinius. 

our'Inn'r! 'T "T f ^"""'''^ '°"*^'^*' ^"* »°"^i^ necessaiy for 
our understanding of the passage. Sallust made an epigram on 

Pompey of such point that it stirred the bitter wrath of Zmpey's 
fnend, was celebrated for generations succeeding (wTnTs 
Phn. and Suet.) and was still current three centuries la er and 
explained by Sacerdos. 

This was in accordance with Sallust's well-known tendency to 

anety,n style, concerning which see Norden, Antike Kunstpro S 

I, ^04, where, however, the illustration cited. Sail. Cat., 33 \ 

plenque, patn*, sed omnes fama atque fortuna expertes, mus ' b^ 

replaced, smce the better reading is patria sede 

bare fact. Boldness of expression couples with antithesis of form 
and every rhetorical device to make the epigram effective. So it" 

The "honest countenance " is set in contrast with the shameless 
m nd a contrast which Sacerdos felt and expressed with sed 

?o r tr 7°"*"^* '" "'°"«'^* ''^ ^ -"'-* - constr - 
tions regard to ons probi it may be said that such an ex- 
pression ,s figurative, and Just as the few classical insta^rof a 
bodily part used figuratively are in the Genitive, so here appears 1 ons probi ; cf. Cic. Orat. 85 ; valentiorum late^m Sr t 
76 plunm. sanguinis ; Fam. 7. ., . non tui stomachi ; Hor Sa V 
4, 8 emunct* nans ; Epod. 12, 3 „aris obes.^ ; Val. 3 Tai fla!' 
rantissimi pectoris. J. •«. z i nag- 

An attempted explanation of oris probi on the basis that the ex- 
pression was sarcastic is discredited by Wolfflin, Archiv. XI 4 p. 



489, and will be omitted here. Besides the arguments there ad- 
vanced the following passage from Seneca seems also to count 
against the sarcastic interpretation. Epist. i, ii, 31 nihil erat 
mollius ore Pompei numquam non coram pluribus erubuit. 

18. Livy I, II, 8 Quod Sabini aureas armillas magni ponderis 

brachio laevo gemmatosque magna specie anulos 

This instance of the variation between Ablative and Genitive of 
Quality different editors have differently accounted for. That 
magna specie is adverbial to gemmatos is unlikely. That it is re- 
quired merely for the sake of variety in the style is doubtful. A suf- 
ficient reason for the juxtaposition of the two cases here is seen in two 
facts, one of which, at least, has escaped all the editors; first, Livy 
is the first writer to show the evidence of that great movement towards 
the free use of the Genitive of Quality which carried the immediately 
succeeding writers Valerius and Velleius almost clear of the use of any 
Ablatives of Quality, while making their Genitives so frequent. For the 
effect of this change in usage on expressions of the idea of pondus 
see page 43. What we need to note here is that ponderis is 
Livy's unvaried usage, a usage apparently grounded in a perception 
of a logical distinction between the force of the Genitive and of the 
Ablative. The second fact concerns specie. Neither Livy nor any 
other writer before Palladius (355-395 A. D.) recognized the per- 
missibility of a Genitive of Quality in place of specie, owing, as we 
have seen page 23, to the form. 

19. Liv. 6, 22, 7 Exactae iam aetatis Camillus erat, sed vegetum in- 

genium in vivido pectore vigebat, virebatque in- 
tegris sensibus, .... 

It seems too great a stretch to regard integris sensibus here as 
Ablative of Quality, though under Golling's definition it might be 
held that it describes the noun Camillus rather than the manner in 
which he flourished. The use of the Genitive here accords with the 
general swing toward a preference for expressing the Genitive forms 
of ideas. At an earlier day we should have had the form aetate, as 
already remarked in connection with Cses. 7, 39 and Verr. 5, 32. 




20. Liv. 27, 19, 8 Cum Afros venderet iussu imperatoris quaestor 

puerum adultum inter eos forma insigni cum 
audisset regii generis esse ad Scipionem misit. 

Since the first instance we have of insignis in the Genitive of 
Quality occurs in Justinus, and so late as Tacitus only the Ablative 
form of this adjective appears, we could hardly look for a Genitive 
formae insignis here, although with an adjective of the first decl. 
Livy could and did use the Genitive formcX, 44, 28 eximia? equos 
formae, notwithstanding all precedent to the contrary; cf. eximia 
forma, Cic. Tusc. 5, 61; Ten Andr. 72; Plant. Stich., 381; Merc, 
260, 210, 13. 

The contrast between Ablative and Genitive here serves also a 
rhetorical purpose by distinguishing between the relations in which 
the two qualities are felt to stand towards their subject. Thus, the 
fact that a grown boy furnished a noble exterior would not have 
prevented his being sold by the quaestor, but the fact that he 
belonged to a royal family was of very different importance and 
caused him to be sent to Scipio. 

21. Liv. 30, 4, I Calonum loco primos ordines spectatte virtutis 

atque prudentiae servili habitu mittebat. 

The Genitive virtutis atque prudentiae is logical, and for Livy 
regular, though an earlier writer would probably have used virtute 
atque prudentia, as commented above to Cic. Fam. i, 7, 11 and 
Cic. Phil. 2, 13. The juxtaposition of two cases here is brought 
about by the meaning of servili habitu. 

If the Ablative of Quality describes the subject at the time of its 
manifestation, but the Genitive the characteristic which belongs to a 
person, then the Genitive habitus would have been distinctly out 
of place here and the Ablative habitu altogether appropriate, for 
these soldiers merely were sent out in servile garb; they were not 
men of characteristically servile appearance. A distinction between 
habitu as clothing and habitus as the character of the appearance 
may be observed elsewhere. Thus, compare the Genitives in Val. 
Max. 5, I, 7 puer eximiae formae et liberalis habitus, and Plin., N. H. 
35, 114 Gryllum deridiculi habitus with the Ablatives in Liv. 26, 6, 
II habitu Italico; Tac. Ann. 4, 59 habitu tali repertus est; Ann! 
12, 41 puerili habitu. 




2 2. Liv. 31, 21, 6 in Sabinis incertus infans natus, masculus an 

femina esset, alter sedecim iam annorum item 
\j ambiguo sexu inventus. 

The Genitive annorum is regular and unavoidable, but the reason 
i for the use of ambiguo sexu is farther to seek. Livy had already 
used the Genitive in 26, 34, 5 puberes virilis sexus, and this usage was 
followed by Tac, Ann. i, 58; 2, 38; 2, 84; 6, 19; Suet., Aug. loi; 
Fronto, Strat. i, 11, 6; Justin., i, 4, 7; 37, i; 53, 2, though the 
earlier usage had been invariable in the Ablative That there is any 
physical difference between puer virilis sexus and puer virili sexu 
could not be maintained. Whether in our passage there is a sub- 
jective difference in the Latin similar to that which one feels in Eng- 
lish between the phrases a child sixteen years old of doubtful sex was 
discovered, and, a child sixteen years old was discovered with its sex 
doubtful, may be left for each observer to determine. That there 
is no sexus ambiguus to which a child could belong, as he might 
belong to the sexus virilis may also be taken into account here. 

23. Liv. ^8, 24, 2 Orgiagontis reguli uxor forma eximia custodie- 

batur inter plures captivas; cui custodiae cen- 
turio praeerat et libidinis et avaritiae militaris. 

Forma eximia was from the earliest times a set phrase, of sufficient- 
ly frequent occurrence to suggest its use by Livy, both here and at 26. 
50, I. See also the comment on page 64 to Liv. 27, 19, 8. The 
growing preference for the Genitive forms is seen in Livy's use of 
equos eximiae formae at 44, 28, and this same preference appears in 
the use of libidinis and avaritiae in our example. 

24. Val. Max. i, 7. 7 existimavit ad se venire hominem ingentis mag- 

nitudinis, coloris nigri, squalidum barba et 
capillo inmisso. 

The distinction here between the use of Genitive and of Ablative 
is entirely clear. It lies in the peculiarity of Valerius' style, shared 
by other writers of his time, which led him to throw every one of his 
*'qualitatis" ideas into the Genitive form, except in three instances; 
I, I, Ext. 16 eximia facie; 3, 2, 23 capite, umero, femine saucio 
oculo eruta, and the one before us, capillo inmisso. Of these the 
first was impossible in the Genitive because of the form of facie, as 



shown on pages i6. The other Ablatives are parts of the body 
which Valerius never uses in the Genitive. 

For defense of capillo inmisso as Ablative of Quality and not 
Ablative Absolute, cf. Golling, Gym. VI, 2, page 43. In our 
example is further to be noted the new construction of squalidum 
barba = squalida barba, which offers an additional means of variety 
to the style and of escape from the old-fashioned Ablative of Quality. 

25. Piin. N. H. 7, 24 choromandarum gentem vocat Tauron sil- 

vestrem, sine voce, stridoris horrendi, hirtis cor- 
poribus oculis glaucis, dentibus caninis. 

26. II, 274 contra longae esse vitae incurvos umeris et in manu 

unam aut duas incisuras longas habentes et plures 
quam XXXII dentes auribus amplis. 

27. 12, 46 distatquod sine cauliculo est et quod minoribus foliis 

quodque radicis neque amarae neque odoratae. 

28. 12, 56 contorti esse caudicis ramis aceris maxime Pontici. 

29. 25, 74 simplici caule, minimis foliis floris copiosi erumpentis 

cum uva maturescit, odore non iniucundo. 

30. 25, 1 10 quae feniculi similitudine candidioribus foliis et minoribus 

hirsutisque, caule pedali recto, radice suavissimi 
gustus et odoris. 

31. 27, 44 herba foliis duns cineracei colons, 

longis, callosis rubentibus. 

., viticulis 

Z2, 27, ^^ humilis herba densis foliis fere papaveris, minoribus 

tamen sordidioribusque, odoris t^tri gustus 
amari cum adstrictione. 

33. 27,115. tertium genus, . . . uno caule densis geniculis 

et in se infarctis, foliis autem pice«, radicis 

34. 27, 118 Pancratium . . . foliis albi lili longioribus cras- 

sioribusque, radice bulbi magni, colore rufo. 



35. 27,122 Poterion .... languine spissa, foliis parvis, 

rotundis, et amulis longis, mollibus, lentis, 
tenuibus, flore longo, herbacei coloris. 

36. 31, 47 Terra vero ipsa promittit candicantibus maculis aut tota 

glauci coloris. 

Before citing, in addition to these twelve instances from Pliny 
eleven more which involve the juxtaposition of Ablative and Geni- 
tive of Quality, we shall be able to realize that we have come upon an 
author who shows a new freedom in the use of these constructions. 
A two-fold reason is not far to seek. Pliny, in the first place, found 
himself with a wavering tradition behind him regarding the use of 
these cases. The republican writers had used Ablatives vastly in 
the preponderance. Writers after Livy had used Genitives almost 
exclusively. Where later usage had conflicted with earlier, whose 
authority was Pliny to follow? In the second place, in a work 
somewhat of the nature of a descriptive catalogue, how could Pliny 
resist the temptation to gain for his style whatever variety was 
possible by resorting to all known expedients of change in form. 

This second point is fully observed by Johannes Miiller, who 
says (Stil des Aelteren Plinius III, § 181) ''Bei einem Werke mit 
der Anlage und Behandlungsweise der N. H. war fiir die Darstellung 
keine Gefahr grossere als in Einformigkeit zu verfallen," and in illus- 
tration of Pliny's effort to avoid this danger, he devotes paragraphs 
and sections to *' Wiederholung desselben Wortes nach kurzem 
Zwischenraume "; * * Gleichmassiger Anfang "; ' ' Mannigfaltigkeit "; 
''Abwechslung zwischen. i. Sing, und PI ; 2. die Casus; 3. Gen. 
od. abl. qual. u. adj. ; 4. abl. qual. u. relationis ; 5. abl. qual. od. 
adj. u. Dat. des Besitzes oder habere, " etc. , etc. 

He says (§ 22, 2): *'Speciell die Abwechslung zwischen Gen. u. 
Abl. qual., bei den Aelteren Schriftstellern durchaus selten auch bei 
den spateren nicht haufig, ist dem Plinius ganz Gelaufig. " 

Under such circumstances we shall expect to find the difference 
between the two cases pressed to its lowest point and every subject- 
ive discrimination sunk occasionally under the desire for variety. 
Yet even in Pliny the instances show the cases not used with entire 
indifference. For instance, Pliny uses, as the examples cited above 
all show, only the Ablative in the plural. The only exception is 


J 1 

'■ ^ 



37. 21, 23nec ulli florum excelsitas maior, interdum cubitorum 

trium, languido semper collo et non sufficient! 
capitis oneri. 

where the construction is one of Measure the use of which in the 
Genitive was uniform. See note to Cic. N. D., 2, 48 above and 
to Livy 31, 12. 

Again, grammatical clearness sometimes required the use of one 
or the other construction. Thus with Nos. 29, radice suavissimi 
gustus et odoris; 30, foliis cineracei coloris; 31, foliis odoris 
taetri gustus amari; 33, radice bulbi magni, and 35, flore herbacei 
coloris, compare. 

38. 12, 47 radice galli nardi semine acinosum, saporis calidi. 

39. 12, 56 folio piri, minore dumtaxat et herbidi coloris. 
^40. 21, 25 gemino caule, carnosiore radice maiorisque bulbi. 

In the last example, for instance, a maioreque bulbo would modify 
not radice, as here intended, but the same subject which caule and 
radice modify, and it is in just the same way that in No. 25 above 
the Genitive stridoris horrendi after sine voce frees the style from 
grammatical obscurity. These two requirements of Ablatives for the 
plural and the forced use of cases for grammatical distinctness ac- 
count for the use of all the Ablatives and Genitives in Nos. 31 and 

Add to these the fact that Pliny always puts parts of the human 
body, like collo, capite, dorso, ore (except illius probi oris) barba, 
capillo, auribus, pedibus, oculis, dentibus, in the Ablative, and that 
he seems to feel sometimes the analogy with parts of the human 
body of parts of vegetables' bodies, as caule, folio, ramis, bacis, 
cortice, frutice, and we shall thus have accounted also for Nos. 30, 
36 and 40. Curious to observe is that flore and radice, which 
ought to come in the above list, show exceptions; flore twice, 
against its regular use in the Ablative twenty times; and radice 
thrice, against its regular use twenty-one times in the Ablative. 
Still more curious is that each one of these five exceptions occurs 
where the Genitive is in juxtaposition with an Ablative. These ex- 
ceptions appear in Nos. 27, 29 and 33 above and the two following 





41. 19, 1 2 7 purpuream maximae radicis Csecilianam vocant; rotun- 

dum vero minima radice darvri'da, 

42. 21, 154 candidum radice lignosa, in coUibus nascens, . . . 

alterum nigrius florisque nigri. 

Another exception to be mentioned here is that shown by the 
Genitive contorti caudicis of No. 28 above. 

It would be drawing the distinction too fine to say that both 
flore and radice, above, were potential parts of the plant's body 
rather than actually manifest parts; that is, that a plant could be 
flore nigro only when in bloom, but at other times quite as well 
floris nigri, and radice lignosa when the root could be observed, but 
radicis neque amarae nee odoratae even when it had to be dug for. 
Such a distinction, however, would not be without analogy. Take, 
for example, the Genitive Jn No. 25 above. Longae vitas refers to a 
long life predicted and yet to come, but not actually present, and 
it might be applied to a youth of twenty. This would certainly not 
be true of longa vita. A point at which Pliny seems to have allowed 
his choice of Ablative or Genitive to be aff"ected by declensional 
form is apparent in this use of coloris and colore. With 14 in- 
stances of coloris facing 16 instances of colore it would seem bold 
to assert that Pliny made a distinction between them, until we com- 
pare the instances. When, however, we place beside cineracei 
coloris (No. 31) and herbacei coloris (No. 36) the following two 

43. 26, 37 radix . . coloris intus herbacei crassitudine digiti 


44. 27. 125 femina magis herbacei coloris caule tenui. 

we get the suggestion that the form of adjective stems in eo may 
have constituted a source of distinction in Pliny's mind. By the 
side of these instances are to be placed the following: 24, 33 mellei 
coloris; ^J, 170 aurei coloris; 27, 83 crocei coloris; 37, 51 coloris 

Now, over against these set: 

45. 10, 8 ha^c facit ut quintum genus yvrfaiov vocetur velut verum 

solumque incorruptae originis, media magnitud- 
ine, colore subrutilo, rarum conspectu. 





( 1 

and with this compare the colore rufo of No. 34 above and the 
whole list of adjectives appearing with colore, as follows; adusto, 
inclinato ad, herbido, languido, subnitilo, medio, livido, langues- 
cente, subnifo. If the list stopped here, the distinction above sug- 
gested would be clear enough. There are at hand, however, two 
more Ablatives which must be mentioned; 16, 43 liquoris melleo 
colore, where the Ablative is perhaps suggested by the need of 
grammatical clearness, and ^y, 170 Idaei dactyli in Creta ferreo 
colore pollicem humanum exprimunt, where the Ablative, if not 
dependent upon exprimunt, can only be called an exception. 

Before passing to the next example, observe again, in No. 45, 
the distinction between the relation of the Genitive and that of the 
Ablatives to their subject. This yvjJGiov is the true and only per- 
cnopterus of pure breed. It has moderate size and a color towards 
the reddish, and so may a dozen other kinds of percnopteri; but 
this is the only one of pure breed. The distinction in idea is met 
with a distinction in case. 

Three instances from Pliny remain to be cited: 

46. 9, 54 scorpionis effigie aranei magnitudinis. 

We find no example of effigie in the Genitive of Quality and may 
conclude, therefore, that like faciei and speciei it was avoided. 
Had the form effigiei been in use, Pliny might have introduced here 
into the language in place of scorpionis the adjective scorpionius, 
instead of at 20, 8, where it does occur for the first time. 

47- 18, 37 L. Tarius Rufus infima natalium humilitate consulatum 

militari industria meritus antiquae alias parsi- 

Apparently an instance of balanced interchange between Abla- 
tive, adjective, and Genitive. Others see in the Ablative, however, 
not an Ablative of Quality, but of separation. 

Other phrases showing a genirive, singular or plural, dependent 
upon an Ablative of Quality are found elsewhere; for instance: 

Tac. Ann. 4, 44 multa claritudine generis. 
Hist. 4, 1 5 claritate natalium insigni. 

Antiquse parsimoniae would have appeared only in the Ablative 
before the beginning of Silver Latin, which for our construction 
must begin with Livy. 

48. 8, 214 Sunt ibices pernicitatis mirandae, quamquam onerato 

capite vastis cornibus. 

That the quality of pernicitas is related to ibices in a different 
way from that of capite onerato may afford a distinction of ideas 
sufficient to warrant a difference in case. iX 

49. Tac. Hist. I, 14 Piso M. Crasso et Scribonia genitus, nobilis 

utrimque, vultu habituque moris antiqui. 

If the interpretation of moris antiqui as a genitive dependent on 
vultu habituque could be defended, we should have here a Genitive 
of Quality lying within the Ablative phrase and forming a part of 
it. Grammatical clearness would be aided by the Genitive moris 
antiqui instead of a more antiquo, which, however, for another rea- 
son, would never occur, namely, that antiqui moris, like cibi 
minimi (cf. No. i) and impetus antiqui (Ann. 13, 54), is a phrase 
of special sense and somewhat figurative application, of a kind 
which appears in the Genitive only. 

In our passage, however, such an interpretation will not be held. 
Vultu and habitu depend upon moris antiqui, and we should trans- 
late * ' of the old school in look and appearance. " 

50. Hist. 2, 64 et pari probitate mater Vitelliorum, Sextila, antiqui 


The invariable use of pari in the Ablative has been noted already 
on page 27. For moris in the Genitive of Quality see the last 
example. Kugera in his treatise ''Uber die Taciteische Incon- 
cinnitat, " fails to observe this instance. 

5 1. Hist. 4, 1 5 Erat in Caninefatibus stolidae audaciae Brinno, clari- 

tate natalium insigni. 

Heraeus reads insignis, (insigni] insignis Gottl. Keissling u. Wurm), 
but without sufficient authority. The frequency of such Ablatives as 
claritate with a dependent Genitive is commented on above, at No. 46. 
The history of audaciae illustrates what has been said above, page 14, 
concerning the development of constructions. Cicero said audacia, 
Clu. 64, Semper singulari fuit audacia; Fam. 15, 4, 10 his erant 
finitimi pari scelere et audacia Tebarani (though in both these in- 
stances the Genitive of the adjectives used, singularis and paris, 



would have been avoided); Att. 7, 7, 6 tanta auctoritate dux, tanta 
audacia. Sallust begins the use of the Genitive, Cat. 18, adulescens 
nobilis, summae audaciae, which Seneca, of course, takes up, Cont. 
I, 2, 3 cuius audaciae es, puella ? Tacitus had behind him a divided 
tradition and in this instance uses the Genitive. Gellius shows his 
archaistic tendency by returning to the earlier form; 15, 9, 3 quanta 
licentia audaciaque Caecilius hie fuit? 

The aim at contrast in this passage, observed by Ku(;era and 
ascribed in general to Tacitus by Draeger, Gantrelle, Zernial and 
indeed by all writers, is not to be disputed here. 

52. Ann. 4, 29 cum primores civitatis . . Lentulus senectutis 

extremae, Tubero defecto corpore. 

How great a subjective difference there may have been to Tacitus 
between Lentulus senectutis extremae and a supposable Lentulus 
senectute extrema cannot be shown. The evident intention for con- 
trast, however, can be made apparent. 

The general increase of Tacitus' fondness for contrast seen in the 
Annals has been pointed out by Wolfflin, Philol. 25, 121 ff. In the 
passage before us the Ablative, Tubero defecto corpore, was a fore- 
gone conclusion, for, aside from a half dozen instances from Livy and 
the two Senecas, scarcely an example of the Genitive corporis can 
be found before Tacitus (cf. also note to No. 15). Tacitus himself 
has invariably followed the early usage: thus Hist. 2, 32 fluxis 
corporibus; 4, 46 intecto corpore; 4, 77 intecto corpore; Ann. 2, 73 
corpore decoro, genere insigni; 2, 75, defesso luctu et corpore 
aegro; 6, 46 fesso corpore; 11, 36 is modesta iuventa, sed corpore 
insigni; 14, 17 trunco per vulnera corpore; 15, 34 corpore detorto. 

But Tacitus' custom is to express the idea of aetas, also with the 
Ablative; thus Hist. 3, 33 exacta aetate feminas; 3, 67 fessa «tate 
parens; 4, 42 nondum senatoria aetate; Ann. i, 46 Augustum fessa 
aetate; 2, 39 aetate et forma haut dissimili; 2, 60 septingenta milia 
aetate militari; 5, i mortem obiit, aetate extrema; 5, 10 haud dis- 
pari aetate; 6, 11 quamquam provecta aetate; 12, 42 Vitellius vali- 
dissima gratia, aetate extrema; 15, 38 fessa (fessorum Joh. Miiller) 

It would have been simple for Tacitus to have said here Lentulus 
extrema aetate, as he did say extrema aetate Ann. 5, i and 12, 42, 



for this would have expressed no very different fact about Lentulus; 
but he sought variety in style and so, after the analogy of other 
abstracts in the Genitive he introduced here the new phrase 
senectutis extremae. 

53. Ann. 6, 5 Exim Cotta Messalinus, saevissimae cuiusque sententiae 

auctor eoque inveterata invidia ubi primum 
facultas data, arguitur pleraque in C. Caesarem 
quasi incertcC virilitatis. 

The contrast between Ablative and Genitive here is not so marked 
because they are not so closely bound together in the construction 
of the sentence, yet each in its place seems justified. Thus, we 
should distinguish between the hatred which others feel against 
Cotta and which he '*has" because they put it upon him, and a 
hatred which Cotta feels because it is a characteristic of his nature. 
The latter would appear in the Genitive, but the former idea is that 
which Livy intends to convey. 

54. Ann. 4, 61 Q. Haterius, familia senatoria, eloquentiae quoad 

vixit celebratae; 

The abstract qualities of this and the two following examples are 
not unnatural in the Genitive. It is to be noted, however, that 
Tacitus said also, Ann. 4, 48 Balbus, truci eloquentia. 

55. Ann. 6, 15 Calibus ortus patre atque avo consularibus, cetera 

equestri familia, mitis ingenio et comptae facun- 

Contrast here is carried out completely, through the use of 
mitis ingenio, instead of a possible miti ingenio, and of comptae 
facundiae instead of a possible compta facundia. 

56. Ann. 6, 31 Sinnaces, insigni familia ac perinde opibus, et 

proximus huic Abdus ademptae virilitatis. 

The preference of Tacitus for the Ablative of the plurals accords 
with that of the early writers and puts opum instead of opibus out 
of the question. The occurrence of the Genitive of the adjective 
insignis in Justinus makes us doubt whether Tacitus would have 
felt an inclination to avoid its use here. 





57. Ann. 5, I Julia Augusta mortem obiit, aetate extrema, nobili- 

tatis per Claudiam familiam et adoptione Livio- 
rum Juliorumque clarissimae. 

Again the Ablative aetate extrema, the use of which has been 
illustrated in the note to No. 52. Here it seems as much an ''in" 
case as a ''with " case. The Genitive contrasted with it is again an 
abstract quality. We observe once more the evidence of Tacitus' 
fondness for contrast in the setting off of per with the accusative 
against adoptione, an Ablative of Means. 

S^. Ann. 12, 2 Ne femina experta^ fecunditatis, integra iuventa, 

claritudinem Ccesarum aliam in domum ferret. 

*'A woman of proved fertility, with her youthful vigor still 
unbroken." The speaker's attitude is different towards the two 
qualities, the fecundity being looked upon as the attribute which 
determines the character of the woman. 

59. Ann. 13, 54 Quod comiter a visentibus exceptum, quasi im- 
petus antiqui et bona cemulatione. Nero etc. 
II iemulatione codd. ; aemulatio Rhenanus ||. 

Says Furneau, ad loc. : "So Halm and Nipperdey after Rhen- 
anus instead of the Med. aemulatione (the ne being supposed to 
have arisen out of a repetition of the following word). Others re- 
tain the Med. But here the gen. is not strictly that of quality and 
the abl. could hardly be other than causal, and we should have to 
explain the sentence (with Gron.) as 'quasi impetus antiqui esset, 
et aimulatione bona fieret. ' " 

Draeger, on the other hand, reads aemulatione and cites this in- 
stance (Stil des Tac, § 283) as an example of co-ordination of Abla- 
tive and Genitive of Quality, which is the view held also by Em. 
Jacob in his Edition (Paris, 1875). Ku(;era, by omitting this passage 
from his list, seems to follow Halm's reading and this is, most re- 
cently, the view adopted by Constans in his edition (Paris, 1898). 

To the majority Rhenanus' conjecture seems to furnish the easier 
reading and if we adopt it our example disappears. 

60. Ann. 15, ^2> ad hoc lamenta paventium feminarum; fessa jetate 

aut rudis pueritiae [aetas] jjpueritiae Jac. Grono- 


vius; pueritiae aetas (fessa aut rudis pueritiae 
setas. Lipsius, fessa aut rudis aetas Haase\, 

The latest editors seem agreed with Halm in regarding [aetas] as 
a gloss. Draeger, ad loc. comments: "Diepaventes zerfallen in 
drei klassen; Weiber, Greise und Kinder. Ablativ und Generiv der 
Eigenschaft hiingen also als appositionen von paventium ab, ebenso 
wie feminarum." Under this interpretarion the passage would 
illustrate Tacitus' tendency to contrast, showing three different 
styles of expression for three appositional ideas. It is simpler, how- 
ever, to accept the interpretation suggested by Halm's punctuation 
and regard rather setate and pueritice as appositional to feminarum. 

Fessa aetate is for Tacitus a regular construction (cf. No. 51). 
Rudis pueririce on the other hand is unusual, this phrase not being 
found elsewhere. 

61. Fronto. ad M. Caes. 2, 5 (p. 30 Naber) Satis ne ego audaci con- 

silio et iudicio temerario videar, cum de tantae 
gloriae viro existimo. 

The Ablatives denote the qualities with which the subject mo- 
mentarily appears and we might easily see here an illustration of 
Kriiger's distincrion between the Ablarive, showing the subject " wie 
er sich zeigt" and the Genitive, "wie er ist." 

We should observe here, however, that whereas Fronto might 
say Polemon fuit tanta gloria, we should hardly find him saying 
de tanta gloria viro, for after de the Ablarive gloria would be confus- 
ing. This limitation upon the use of the Ablarive has been noted 
already at page 68. 

62. Gell. I, 15, 19 Huiusmodi autem loquacitatem verborumque 

turbam magnitudine inani vastam. 

If we interpret magnitudine inani with either verborum or turbam 
^_ verborum inanissimorum turbam or verborum turbam inanissi- 
mam) we have an instance of its juxtaposirion as Ablative of Quality 
with the Genirive huiusmodi. This would offer no peculiarity, as 
the Genitive would be a compound of modi, and the Ablative a 
descriprive case, which, though it would appear in the Genirive in 
Val. Max, or Seneca, is used exclusively in the Ablarive by Gellius, 



iriLi' '°' ^' '' "'"'*'^**"^ ^'' ■•^'"™ to the style of the earlier 

is no*"! °" '''".K? "' *''"''' ''" •"^"P''* magnitudine with vastam it 
IS no longer Ablafve of Quality, and the example falls out. 

63- 3, 16, 4 Caecilius, quum faceret eodem nomine et eiusdem ar- 

gumenti comcediam. 

sion^< « f '^""T" '"^u '^"''' "' '"^J<="'"" "^ '" th^ English expres- 
Ye^as.m.lanty of contents does seem deeper than a similarity in 

64. 9. 4. 6 qua fuisse facie Cyclopas poet« ferunt, alios item esse 

homines apud eandem c^Ii plagam singulari* 

alre^y' '"""""'''"'^ °^ ^^"^ «^'''«f *<> ^t^ fo™ has been noted 
as Hirtms B. G. 8, 36, summae velocitatis homines. 

65. 9, 4, 9 esse . . homines . . caninis capitibus . . atque esse . . 

homines . . vivacissims pernicitatis; quosdam 
etiam esse nullis cervicibus. 

Capitibus and cervicibus are parts of the body and plural, so of 

66. 14, 2, 6 hominem esse non bonae rei vitaque turpi et sordida 

convictumque . . 

and Cato'o*t '''"'"''"' ^' ^''"*- ^"'=''- 7^° ""'» ^^^ primus 
andCato Ong. Frg. 141, nulli pro nullius] qui tantisper nulli rei 

Others interpret as a dative ; thus cf. homo frugi. 
writei' ^^^^"^'^ '"' ■' "'° ^^'"'"'^^^"t °^ the usage of early 



^ ■> 

67- i7> 9» 7 surculi duo erant teretes, oblonguli, pari crassamento 

eiusdemque longitudinis. 

The use of pari and not paris is determined by its form, cf. page 
27. Longitudinis is an abstract and is found elsewhere in the 
Genitive; cf. Gell. Index Cap. 7, 3 de serpente invisitatae longitu- 
dinis (where the Ablative after de would have been less clear) and 
Liv. 31, 39, II rumpise ingentis longitudinis. 

The lack of any very clear distinction here between the relations 
to surculi of crassamento and longitudinis suggests the notion that 
the former, as well as the latter, might have stood in the Genitive, 
except for lack of the form paris. 

On the other hand, we may perhaps discern an aim after variety 
in the choice of the noun form crassamento in place of the far more 
common crassitudine which would have given an ending so like that 
of longitudinis. 

68. 17, 19, 3 nam cum, inquit, animadverterat hominem pudore 

amisso, importuna industria, corruptis moribus, 
audacem, .... istiusmodi hominem cum viderat. 

For istiusmodi cf. note to No. 2. For industria, notes to Nos. 
I and 10; pudore, to Nos. 6 and 23; moribus, to No. 49. 

69. 19, 9, I Adulescens e terra Asia de equestri loco, Isetse indolis 

moribusque et fortuna bene ornatus et ad rem 
musicam facili ingenio ac lubenti, cenam dabat. 

Here are five circumstances narrated of this young man, each in 
a different construction ! That indolis should be in the Genitive is 
logical. Ingenio, on the other hand, is affected by the history of 
its own past, cf. page 54. Gellius shows here his archaistic tend- 
ency, having always the Ablative ingenio, never the Genitive ingenii. 
Cf. I, 5, 3; 2, 18, 3; 4, 15, 2; 6 (7), 3, 8; 10, 18, 6; 12, 4, i; 
i3> 25, 21; 13, 30, 3; 17, 15, 2; 19, 8, 6; 19, 9, I. 

70. 19, 9, 2 Antonius Julianus rhetor . . Hispano ore florentisque 

homo facundiae et rerum litterarumque veterum 





Again, three descriptive phrases, each in a different construction. 
But observe, the part of the body, ore, is set as usual in the Abla- 
tive, as also ore in i, 19, 8 Tarquinius ore iam serio atque attentiore 
animo fuit. The abstract quality is again in the Genitive. 

Before our next instance after Gellius there is a break of over a 
hundred years, and the general observation is called for that in that 
time a change in usage took place by way of limitation in the Abla- 
tive. The Scriptores Historiae Augustie, Aurelius Victor and 
Eutropius furnish many instances of the Genitive of Quality, few of 
the Ablative. The first volume of Kroll and Skutsch's new edition 
of Firmicus Maternus offers, it is true, 30 Ablatives, but of these 
two-thirds are in the plural and the others, with four exceptions, 
relate to the body and its description. Palladius has 83 Ablatives! 
35 of which are plurals and the rest comprise crassitudine and 
genitive pedum, latitudine, and the like; parts of the body; forma, 
facie, grano, caule, folio, flore and once, corpore, besides two in- 
stances of hoc genere; practically all, therefore, relating to bodily 
description. The Periochse of Livy contain only Genitives. Of 
the Scriptores Physiognomici, who deserve mention because of their 
abundant use of the constructions in hand, Bartholomeus de Mes- 
sana has only one Ablative, and there a variant reading, but many 
Genitives; while Polemo and the others have Ablatives within a 
limited range only. The perception of a difference in feeling be- 
tween Ablative and Genitive, by which a writer could convey a sub- 
jective distinction with regard to the object, seems to have decayed 
and usage seems to have moved along other lines. 

We see the illustration of this in the four examples which 
Lessing quotes (Studien, p. 26 ff.). 

71. S. H. A. Hadr. 10, 6 Nulli vitem nisi robusto et bonse fama^ 

daret nee tribunum nisi plena barba faceret aut 
eius aetatis, quae . . . 

72. Ant. Pi. 2, I 

Fuit vir forma conspicuus [ingenio] clarus mori- 
bus, Clemens nobilis vultu placidus; ingenio 
singulari eloquentiae nitida? litteraturae pra^cipuce 
II ingenio cum Reg. del S. ingens Kellerbauer, 
page 623, singularis B^ exc.2 M distinxit S.jj 

'j^. Pesc. 6, 5 Fuit statura prolixa forma decorus capillo in verti- 

cem ad gratiam reflexo, vocis canorae . . oris 
verecundi et semper rubidi, cervice adeo nigra. 

74. Tyr. 30, 15 fuit vultu subaquilo, fusci coloris, oculis supra 

modum vigentibus nigris, spiritus divini venus- 
tatis incredibilis. 

Observe that all the parts of the body here expressed are in the 
Ablative and all the Ablatives express parts of the body; except in 
No. 71, ingenio singulari, where there is a variant singularis, and 
in No. 73 oris verecundi, which seems a reminiscence of Sallust's 
famous epigram, cf note to No. 16, and observe that the adjective 
rubidus in this connection accords with the phrase of Sacerdos, 
cited at page 62, coloris erat rubei, though it is uncertain that 
Sacerdos was earlier than the writer of our passage, Spartianus. 

Ingenio in the Ablative is supported by the regular usage, early 
and late, as noted to No. 8. 

75. Firm. Mat. 3, 3, 10 faciet honestis moribus homines et moder- 

atae dignitatis. 

76. 3, 10, 9 faciet . . longioris vitas et bonce securi- 

tatis et bonis consiliis ac moribus et qui . 

yy. 4, 19, 5 faciet homines . . bonos graves, boni 

consilii . . et qui . . corpore erunt . . 
languidi et frigido ventri . . sed circa uxores 
et filios erunt alieno semper affectu. 

The Ablatives accord with the usage of the time, being, with the 
exception of affectu, either plurals, corpore, or parts of the body. 
Affectu seems to be understood as a transitory quality, but the dis- 
tinction between transitory and permanent qualities is at this late 
period no longer commonly felt. *'Longioris vitce et bonse securi- 
tatis et bonis consiliis ac moribus " seems like a translation of three 
Greek adjectives, perhaps /.(aHpo/SicDrepovs and two compounds 
with €v. A genitive morum could not appear for the reasons 
already mentioned on page $7. Firmicus has moribus elsewhere; 
3» 2, 20; 3, 7, 8. 





78. Aurel. Vic. Caes. 18 Hie doctrinae omnis ac moribus antiquissi- 


Observe, again, the ablative plural moribus. Doctrinae omnis, 
sounds like a translation of jtoXDiarcop, 

79. Pallad. 3, 26, I legendi sunt vasti et ampli corporis sed rotundi 

potius quam longi, ventre et clunibus magnis, 
rostro brevi, cervice glandulis spissa. 

80. 4, II, 2 ut sint boves novelli, quadratis et grandibus membris 

et solidi corporis, musculis ac toris ubique sur- 
gentibus magnis auribus, latse frontis et crispae, 
labris oculisque nigrantibus cornibus robustis ac 
sine curvutune pravitate lunatis, patulis naribus 
et resimis, cervice torosa atque conpacta, palae- 
aribus largis et circa genua fluentibus pectore 
grandi, armis vastis, ventre non parvo, porrectis 
lateribus, latis lumbis, dorso recto et piano, 
cruribus solidis, nervosis, et brevibus, ungulis 
magnis, caudis longis ac setosis, pilo totius cor- 
poris denso ac brevi, rubei maxime coloris aut 

81. 4, II, 4 ut sint alti atque ingentibus membris, eetatis mediae et 

magis . . torva facie, parvis cornibus, torosa 
vastaque cervice, ventri substricto. 

83. 4, II, 5 sed eligemus forma altissima corporis longi uteri capacis 

et magni, alta fronte, oculis nigris et grandibus, 
pulcris cornibus, et praecipue nigris, aure setosa, 
palearibus et caudis maximis, ungulis brevibus et 
cruribus nigris et parvis, aetatis maxime trimae, 
quia, etc. 

83. 4, 14, I equam magni corporis, solidis ossibus et forma egregia 

debet eligere. 

84. 4, 14, 3 admissarius tamen asinus sit huiusmodi corpore amplo, 

solido, musculoso, strictis et fortibus membris, 
nigri vel murini maxime coloris aut rubei, qui. 

^5- 7> 7» 7 apes recti oribus cruribus, neque grandibus pennif, 

pulchri coloris et nitidi. 

2>6. 8, 4, 2 arietem . . ventre promisso et lanis candidis tecto, 

Cauda longissima, velleris densi, fronte lata 
magnis testibus aetatis trimae. 

%j, 12, 13, 7 caper eligendus . . . magni corporis, crassis 

cruribus, brevi plenaque cervice, auribus flexis et 
gravibus, parvo capite nitido spisso et longo 

88. 12, 13, 7 capella similis corporis sed magnis uberibus est 


In the face of forma altissima, corporis longi uteri capacis et 
magni, alta fronte (No. 82) and of magnis auribus, latae frontis et 
crispi (No. 80) it is not clear that Palladius felt any subjective dis- 
tinction between the relation of Ablative and of Genitive to their 
subjects. It appears also from solidi corporis and corporis longi 
that this Genitive expresses here the literal body as well as bodily 
size, which we saw distinguished by Nepos; Dat. 3, 1. 

Nor is corporis used here in the Ablative after the analogy of the 
bodily parts, as so often by Pliny, as noted on page 42. Now ap- 
pears, too, similis in the Genitive (No. 88), an example of which 
for an earlier time would be hard to cite. Palladius even departs 
so far from the usage of earlier times as to use the Genitive speciei, 
3> 9) 3 uvas pulchrae speciei, discussed under No. 15. 

If earlier distinctions have disappeared, does Palladius ob- 
serve new ones or forsake all ? The answer with regard to his Ab- 
latives has been hinted at already. They scarcely extend beyond ex- 
pressions of the bodily parts, phrases like crassitudine digiti, and 
plurals. Observe that in the ten examples here cited every Ablative 
is for a part of the body except in No. 84, where corpore is for the 
body itself. 

Concerning Palladius' Genitives it is interesting to note that out 
of 109 instances, ^"j are of the termination -oris, mostly liquid stems 
of the 3d declension though including corporis. Considering the large 
number in modi and phrases of measure, such as decem pedum, this 
is a very great proportion ; far greater than any other author shows. 





The suggestion readily arises that Palladius felt for this form a spe- 
cial inclination. This suggestion is strengthened by the occurrence 
in the Genitive of Quality of adjectives likewise of this form; maioris 
and tenerioris more than a dozen times. 

The use of the Genitive for abstract qualities is regular, so, mag- 
nitudinis, soliditatis, qualitatis, infelicitatis, fecunditatis. 

Remarkable is that while Ablatives are almost limited to parts of 
the body, parts of the body are not limited to the Ablative. Thus 
we have 3, 9, 2 grani tenerioris et umidi and 3, 9, 3 grani callosi et 
siccioris et cutis tenerioris, beside 3, 8, 4 grano breviore ; 4, 13, 4 
magni ventris, beside 4, 1 1, 2 ventre non parvo ; 4, 11,4 ventre sub- 
stricto, 8, 4, 2 ventre promisso ; 3, 26, i longi lateris and 4, 9, 14 
soluti lateris, beside 4, n, 2 lateribus ; and 4, n 2 latae frontis, 
beside 4, n, 5 alta fronte and 8, 4, 2 fronte lata. 

Returning now to the instances in hand it is noteworthy that of 
sixteen Genitives involved, nine are in -oris, namely, coloris, invari- 
able in Palladius in the Genitive, and corporis, also in the Genitive, 
with one exception, 4, 13, 3, where it is in a phrase rhetorically con- 
trasted with a Genitive huiusmodi. 

Huiusmodi is invariable. 

Of the other six Genitives three are of aetatis, where it defines 
a class to which the subject belongs. The remaining three are con- 
trary to rule. Uteri capacis (No. 82) may be owing to attraction to 
the case of the preceding Genitive. 

Next come the Scriptores Physiognomici, of whom the most im- 
portant is Polemo, whose usage is in general comparable to that of 
Palladius. Parts of the body he puts in the Ablative ; many of 
them are in the plural. Otherwise the Genitive is common. But 
Polemo has Genitives in the plural, and even the rhyme -orum, 
-orum, though that seems chiefly to occur in the case of morum. 

89. Scr. Phys. Polemo, p. 188, 21 (Foerst.) serpens pavida fugax 

saepe familiaris celeri mutabilitate deterioris in- 



338, 15 nigros crispis capillis augustis talis oculis 
stibini coloris nigris capillis. 

272, 3 vir . . albi coloris rubro mixti, capillo 
•implice . . moderata statura lateribus gravibus, 

. . brachiis plenis . . facie magna non acuta 
tenui came nee magna oculis umidis et charopis 
et laetitia perfusis. 

By the side of Polemo we find in our Codices an anonymous 
writer, who furnishes us the following examples : 

92. Phys. Anon. (Vol. II., F.) 4, 5 tolerans laborum est, vocis 

solidse aliquanto raucioris . . passibus longis 







4, 92 Ingenuosus esse . . coloris albi . . capillo 
flavo . . corpore recto, membris magnis articulis 
discretis, came moderata, aliquanto molliore . . 

4, 94 Impudens . . debet; oculis patentibus lucidis . , 
crassis pedibus et manibus . . rubicundus colore, 
vocis acutae [acute vocis A]. 

4, 107 vocem infirmi potius,spiritus || spiritus om. Mo. || 
quam expressam et claram habet, . . oculis erit 
non perlucidis. 

4, no ;/A.a^i^/>oz? membris esse debet . . coloris 
albi, nitidis oculis naribus ex superiore parte ten- 

4, 124 erunt parvi. cavis oculis malae barbae, brevibus 
cervicibus, parvorum oculorum, rugosi vultus, . . 

4, 130 clamosum, femininae vocis . . non indecori 
corpore, capite prope rotundo, speciosis oculis, 
cervice procera, incessu pulchri. 

The style of our Anonymous differs from that of Polemo, in having 
fewer Genitives, but we find some which do not appear in Polemo; 
for instance, speciei and parts of the body in the Genitive, such as, 
4, 123 erunt acuti vultus, proscissi oris, longi corporis, acutae naris, 
oculorum eminentium. 

In the seven examples from Anonymous before us the Ablatives 
are all corporeal. In five the Genitives are coloris and vocis, neither 
of which the writer uses consistently. Thus compare colore in 4, 





91; 105; 106 with colons in 4, 24; 26; 27; 107, and no; and voce in 
4, 91; 98; 102 and 119, with vocis in 4, 5, 94; 119, and 130. 

In No. 97 complete insensibility to all distinctions appears. Bar- 
bae was never before in the Genitive; rugosi vultus is decidedly rare 
and parvorum oculorum adds the oifense of the rhyme to the irregu- 
larity of the Genitive plural for bodily parts; and that, too, after cavis 
oculis in the same sentence. 

99. Pseudo Polemon. 5 A 14 cuius spina dorsi aequa media) magni- 

tudine est, fortis animi est. 

With Pseudo Polemo the Genitive is the more usual, especially of 
animi cf. 5 A 7; 8; 14 (thrice). The rarity of aequus, sequa, has been 
noted already, page 29. 

100. Bart, de Mess. (Foerst) 39, 9 qui est albi coloris et pilosus, 

rectis capillis et grossis || rectus F, grossus F || et 
nigir || durus in F., ^/om. R ||. 

With Bartholomaeus, the latest of the Scriptores Physiognomic!, the 
decay of early distinctions between Ablative and Genitive seems com- 
plete, the Ablative losing its function of expressing parts of the body, 
cf. 49, 4 minoris capitis; 35, 13 boni menti; which appear only in the 
Genitive, even in plurals, cf. 21, 2 durorum pilorum; 49,4 parvarum 
costarum. The Genitive of nouns of the fifth declension is no longer 
avoided, cf. 41, 8 obscurae faciei; 49, 4 augustioris faciei, nor is the 
rhyme -orum -orum, cf. 37, 6 parvorum membrorum et parvorum ar- 
ticulorum, macer et parvorum oculorum et parvse faciei. 

If Foerster's reading is correct in our example 100, then it stands 
alone as having the only Ablative of Quality used by Bartholomaeus. 
The reading of the nominatives rectus, grossus and durus, with F, 
would find support in the analogy of 35, 7 facie remissus, and may be 

This brings us to the end of our chapter. If the evidence accu- 
mulated does not give us a simple solution to all the questions raised 
over our constructions, it does, at least, afford abundant illustration 
to those views, with the expression of which this chapter was begun. 



In addition to the complete grammars of Kriiger, Zumpt, Madvig, 
Kiihner and Roby; Draeger's Historische Syntax; the Landgraf- 
Schmalz edition of Reisig-Haase; Schmalz's Grammatik in Miiller's 
Handbuch; Neue's Formenlehre; Nagelsbach's Stilistik; Keil's Gram- 
matici Latini; the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, and the German 
and American school grammars, special mention is due the following 

Bell, An dr. 
-Ebrard, Guil. 

Holtze, F. W. 

Loch, Edw. 

Schaaf, Albin. 


Holtze, F. W. 
Fischer, Fr. A. 

Lupus, Bernh. 


Laws, A. 
Antoine, F. 
Kern, H. 


De Locativi in prisca Latinitate vi et Usu. 

Breslau, 1889. 
De Ablativi Locativi Instrumentalis apud Priscos 

Scriptores Latinos Usu. Leipzig, Teub. 

Syntaxis Priscorum Scriptorum Latinorum. 

Leipzig, 1 86 1. 
De Genetivi apud Priscos Scriptores Latinos 

Usu. Progr. Bartenstein, 1880. 
De Genetivi Usu Plautino. Diss. Halle, 1881. 
De Ablativi apud Terentium Usu et Ratione. 

Elbingae, 1859. 
De Genetivi Usu Terentiano. Oels, 1853. 
Syntaxis Lucretianae Lineamena. Leipzig, 1868. 
Th. Die Rectionslehre bei Caesar. (Two programs) 

Halle, 1853-4. 
Der Sprachgebrauch des Cornelius Nepos. 

Berlin, Weidm. 1876. 
De Sallusti Dicendi Genere Commentatio. Prog. 

Berl., 1863. 
De Ablativo Sallustiano, Diss. Jena., 1883. 
De Genetivi Usu Sallustiano. Schrimm, 1878. 
De Dicendi Genere Sallustiano. Rossel, 1864 
De Casuum Syntax! Vergiliana. Paris, 1882. 
Der Ablativ bei Vergil. Schweinfurt, 1881. 
De Casuum Usu Horatiano. Werningerodae, 




Kiihnast, L. 

Riemann, O. 


Miiller, Joh. 

Draeger, A. 

Gantrelle, J. 
Kugera, E. 


Zernial, U. 

Lessing, K. 

Benesch, J. 

Lease, E. B. 


De Genetivi Usu Liviano. Cleve., 1865. 

Die Hauptpunkte der Livianischen Syntax. Ber- 
lin, 1872. 

Etudes sur la langue et la Grammaire de Tite 
Live. Paris, 1884. 

Zum Sprachgebrauch des Velleius Paterculus. 
Putbus, 1878. 

Der Stil des Aelteren Plinius. Innsbruck, 

Ueber Syntax und Stil des Tacitus. Leipzig, 

Grammaire et Style de TacJte. Paris, 1874. 
Ueber die Taciteische Inconcinnitat. Olmiitz, 

Quaestiones de Ablativi Usu Taciteo. Breslau, 

Selecta Capita ex Genetivi Usu Taciteo. Got- 

tingen, 1864. 
Studien zu den Scriptores Historiae Augustae. 

Berlin. 1889. 
De Casuum Obliquorum apud Justinum, etc. 

Vienna, i88y. 
Syntactic, Stylistic and Metrical Study of Pru- 

dentius. Baltimore, 1895. 



Aubert, L. C. M. 

Bennett, C. E. 
Brenous, J. 
Deecke, W. 
Delbruck, B. 


Beitrage zur Lateinischen Grammatik. Chris- 

tiania, 1856. 
Die Lehre vom Gebrauch der Kasus in der 

Lateinischen Dichtersprache. Gotha, 1848. 

Appendix to Bennett's Latin Grammar. Bos- 
ton, 1895. 

Etude sur les Hell6n dans la Syntaxe 

latineP aris, 189. 

Erlauterungen zur Lateinischen Schulgramma- 
tik. Berlin, 1892. 

Ablativ, localis, instrumentalis im Altindischen, 
etc. Berlin, 1867. 


Delbruck, B. 

Egbert, J. C. 

Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der- 
indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg, 

Introduction to the Study of Latin Inscriptions. 
New York, 1896. 
Hiibner, E. W. E. Grundriss zur Vorlesungen, etc Berlin, 1889. 
Hiibschman, J. H. Zur Casuslehre. Miinchen, 1875. 

The Latin Language. Oxford, 1895. 

Dialectorum Italicarum Exempla. Leipzig, 

Beitrage zur Geschichte des Lateinischen Abla- 
tive. Leipzig, 1892. 

Lindsay, W. 
Schneider, E. 

Zeiler, G. 

•Golling, J. 

-Stegmann, C. 

W6efflin, E. 


Zur Lehre vom Ablativ und Genetiv der Eigen- 
schaft. Gymnasium Vol. 6. pp. 2 ff., 42 
ff. Paderborn, 1888. 
^ Zur Lateinischen Schulgrammatik, Neue Jahrb., 
f. Philologie. Vols. 132, pp. 243-7 and 
136, p. 265-9. Leipzig, 1885. 

Der Genetiv des Wertes und der Ablativ des 
Preises. Archiv. Vol. 9, pp. 101-8. Miin- 
chen, 1896. 

Jahresberichte, Philologus. Vol. 25, pp. 122, 
27, 124. Goitingen, 1867. 

Fiigner, Franc, 
Guerber u. Greef. 

Merguet, H. 
Meusel. H. 


Lexicon Livianum (A — ). Leipzig, 1894 — 
Lexicon Taciteum. Leipzig, 1897. 

Lexicon zu Cicero's Philosophischen Schriften. 
Jena, 1887-94. 
Lexicon zu Cicero's Reden. Jena, 1877-84. 
Lexicon Caesarianum. Berlin, 1893. 

Segebade et Lommatsch. Lexicon Petroninam. Leipzig, 1898. 




I, George Vail Edwards, was born at Riverhead, N. Y., on Novem- 
ber 17, 1868. My father, Jeremiah M. Edwards, was a native of 
Sayville, L. I., and my mother, Susan Vail, a native of Riverhead. 
After attending the public school in Riverhead until 1884, I went in 
the following year to Franklinville Academy, to begin under Professor 
Joseph M. Belford my preparation for college. Entering Hamilton 
College with the Class of 1891, I graduated after four years with 
honors, receiving the degree A. B. With the purpose of becoming a 
teacher of Latin I entered immediately upon post-graduate studies at 
Cornell University, following courses in Latin under Professors Hale 
and Elmer ; in Sanskrit under Professor Bristol ; in Archaeology under 
Professor Emerson, and in Roman Life and Comparative Grammar 
under Professor B. L Wheeler, my chief adviser being Professor 
Hale. In the next year I went to Johns Hopkins University, and 
there for two years pursued the work in Latin, Sanskrit and Greek, 
under Professors Warren, Bloomfield, Gildersleeve, Smith, Miller and 
Gudeman, the most attention being devoted to the work of the Latin 
Seminary and the Sanskrit Seminary, Professor Warren being my chief 
adviser. In the fall of 1894, before my work at the Johns Hopkins 
was completed, I accepted a call to the new post ot Instructor in 
Latin at Union College, where I remained three years, taking charge 
of all the work of the Latin Department in 1895-96, during the 
absence of my superior, Professor Ashmore. In the summer of 1897 
I determined to resume my studies and went to Germany. Two 
semesters were spent in the University of Munich in the closest touch 
with Professor Edward Woliflin who, with the greatest kindness, in 
his own study furnished me constantly with exceptional advantages for 
the prosecution of my own work. There was carried forward the 
present investigation of the qualitatis constructions, which had been 
begun, under the direction of Dr. Warren, before I left the Johns 


Hopkins. In Munich, also, I heard the University lectures of Profes- 
sors Wolflflin, Iwan Miiller, Kuhn, Furtwangler and Christ. In the 
fall of 1898 I traveled in Italy, spending two months in Rome and 
hearing the lectures of Professors Peck, Merrill and Norton of the 
American School of Classical Studies. In the spring of 1 899 I went 
again to Baltimore and received in June from the Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity the degree of Ph. D., for which the present dissertation was sub- 
mitted. The final revision of the manuscript for the press has been 
made during the winter and spring of 1900 chiefly at the Library of 
Columbia University, to whose staff I acknowledge indebtedness for 
many courtesies.